DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


LECTURES 
i 


ON 


TEROLOGY3 


OR 


DISSERTATIONS 


ON SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCTRINES 
OF THE 


OHRISTIAN RELIGION, 


BY THE REV. MOSES P. BENNET, 
MINISTER OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 


“What harm can gold catch in the fire, or truth in 
discussiom?”—Archbishop Cranmer. 


¥ 


KITTANNING, PENN. 


PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR BY 
COPLEY, CROLL, & Co. 


1826. 


= 


k 
bad 
Western District of Pennsylvania, to wit: 


eG ie ty-eighth day of February,in the fiftieth year, 


Sse Minister of the Episcopal Church, of the 
said District, hath deposited in this office the 
title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as Author 
and Proprietor, in the words folowing, to wit: : 

“Lectures on Theology;er Dissertations on some of 
the most important Doctrines of the Christian Religion. 
By the Rev. Moses P. Bennet, -Minister of the Ejisco- — 
fial Church.” ‘ ; 

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United 
States, entitied, “An act for the encouragement of learn- 
ing, by: securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, 
‘to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during 
the times therein mentioned.”—And also to the att en- _ 
titled, “An act supplementary to an act enti! n 
act for the encouragement of Leann y securing the - 
copies.of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and — 
proprietors. of such copies,-during “the. times therein - 
mentioned,” and extending the benefits thereof to the 
_ arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and. 
other Prints.” E. J. ROBERTS, Clerk 
: - of the District Court of the United States 

for the Western Disprict of Penna. > 


bY 


one 


_ 


en BAGEL 
ADVERTISEMENT. ‘ 


yi 
. Archbishop Cranmer hath said, “What 


harm can gold catch in the fire, or truth 
in discussion?” <A pearl so glorious as 
4ruth cannot well. be dimmed, even tho’ 


my own eyes should fail- in the percep- 


tion of its rays; wherefore I have for the 
first time ventured to publish my opin- 
ions upon Christian, principles to. the 


2 “7 + 
world; and if by these lectures I can on- 
~ jycausean excitement to furtherresearch 


and study in the all-important doctrines 


of Divinity, [ have in a measure accom- 


plished my end: Prejudice and educa- 
tion are the prevailing cataracts which 


blind the eyes of the inward understand- 
ing; and that these may be removed, I 


‘also have thrown in my mite for the ac- 
complishment thereof. To do this more 


perfectly, I have seen proper to lay my 
foundation in the being and perfections 
of God, beside which, no other founda- 
tion can be laid. I thence. proceed to a, 


_. deduction of many of the first and most 
important doctrines of the Christian Re- - 


ligion; in particular, the glorious doctrine 


of the ‘Trinity inv Unity, Election and 


Reprobation, Justification, Faith and 
Good works, Regeneration and Sanctifi- 


wee 
Se ee ee ee 


iv ADVERTISEMENT. . 


eAtion, and those subjects which are in- ° 


timately connected therewith. And 


though insome particular points my ideas 
may be different fromthe opinions of 
others who have written before me, yet 
I trust they will be received with chari- 
ty, and treated with candour. I do not 


possess so much vanity as to consider ~ 


myself infallible: I know that Tam but 
dust; nevertheless I feelit my duty to 
assist at all timesin the promotion of truth 


and the detection of error. Sometimes — 
even the twinkling: of a star may adda ~ 


ray of hope to the wandering traveller; 
it may change his erring steps, and final- 
ly lead him into the way of truth. With 
these views of rendering the traths of 
Christianity more distinetly perceived, 


and of detecting some errors which have - 


gradually crept into the Christian world, 
I humbly trust that these my endeavors 


will not be in vain. : 
MOSES P. BENNET. 


Kittanning, Sept. 1826, 


CONTENTS. 


‘LECTURE If. 
5 page 
~The importance and various sources of The- 
ological knowledge, and the beingofGod. _? 


LECTURE If. 


“The Nature and Perfections of God and his 
spiritual creatures. - - --------- 31 


he 
LECTURE III. 


A Trinity of Persons in the Godhead con- 
sistent with the Divine Attributes. - - - 60 


* : LECTURE IV. 


The Union of the Divine and Human Na- 


‘tures explained. - ------+----- ge - 


“LECTURE VY. 


The doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the 
Godhead proved from the Seriptures. 105 


LECTURE VI. 


: a) : 
‘Some Objections answered. - - - - - - = - 133 


LECTURE VII. 
The Designs and Actions of the Godhead. 152 


,' > 


tal 


; 
/ 
na 


ee ee 
3 


r 


mais CONTENTS. if 
“ page — 
LECTURE Vill. ' ve 
The Nature of Man. - - - - - - - - by & 


LECTURE IX. 


The Covenants. a a rr ate 190 
LECTURE X, a 
Hlecigp and Reprobation. - at aie Eee 207 
LECTURE XI. 
Justification. - - -y- ------- + - - 233 
LECTURE Xid. 11) 94st A 
Faith and Good Works. - - - - - - - - - - 268 
.% > 
‘LECTURE XII. = 
. ; : th “ip 
Regeneration and Snes sees 4 27 
ERRATA. ae. ay 
Pase’, 2d line, for Theologos read Theologia. 
Page 38—for the 5th line from bo read the 


6th, and for the 6th read the 5th. 
Page 70, 2d line from bottom, for simple read 
_bimpler, ' wing 
Poge 171, after LECTURE VIL insert” The Na- 
eure of Mun. 


& 


_ghignd oN mumOLOeY. 


” 


LECTURE f. 


The importance and various sources of Theo- 
‘logical knowledge, and the Being of God. 


Turotocy is 2 name whose derivation may 
be found in the Greek word Theologos, which 
was originally used to signify the systems or tales 
of Heathen Mythology, which were taught in 
the Grecian schools in the dark ages of ignor- 
ance and superstition. Since that period the 
word has been adopted by Christians to signify 
that particular science under which is compre- 
hended the theories of the Divine existence, na- 
ture, and dispensations. 

In establishing our faith on these very impor- 
tant points, evidences of various kinds are to be 
received and relied upon according to their mer- 
its, With respect to the Divine existence, the 
voice of Nature alone is to be received and relied 
upon as, our argument; and this is of itself per- 
‘feetly adequate. The appearances of the universe 
‘gencrally, and the course of events with which 
we are conversant, indicate the existence of some 
superiour, intelligent, and personal being, who 
formed and governs the same in all its beauty 
and glory. The science of Nature, so far as if 
tends to enlighten our minds on these subjects, 

B 


Vr 


* 


8 LECTURES OX 


is termed Natural Theo Permian x | 
that which is sia or ae? id 
of God. Hence arises the distinction between — 


Natural and Revealed Theology, under whi 
are comprehended all the various sources of know- 
ledge concerning the Divine existence, and his 
relations to man. Natural Theology is to be 
considered the first in order, because this is the 
corner stone of the whole fabrick, and without 


which the voice of Revelation would ae pe 
aseless. The arguments thence de: 


only arguments which ean be admittedas au- 


thoritative in proof of the Divine existence, an 
until this is proved, all attempts to build’ upon 
revelation are vain. “Not that revelation is 'infe- 
riour to the voice of Nature when pro’ he ain 
real; but as this cannot-be done until we fi 

prove that there is‘a ’God who ean make such a 


revelation, it must remain reutral and of noforce 


whatsoever until this isdone. Whether our first 
ideas of such a being are derived from Revela 
tion or the light of Nature only, matters m 
the veice of nature only -which-can be admi 

as proper evidence concerning the truth of these 
ideas. The proposition-which asserts the exis- 
tence of a Deity, let its origin be in what it will, 
may become a-subject of investigation; but the 
arguments in proof of this proposition are to be 
drawn from the light of Nature only; and if-~we 
here find sufficient argument: to establish the 
proposed fact, the origin of the proposition itself 


can have no influence upon the validity of the 
a) Ma ee y 


proofs adduced. ves 
Natural Theology, therefore, is a science in 


the study of which, an investigation of the sen~ ’ 
Aible.and visible appearances of the ereated uni-. 


* 


+ 


_ - THEOLOGY. 9 


ing, nature, dispensations, and relatio 
he Dei aving thus laid the foundation, and 
raced the outlines of our first ideas on these a 
nportant subjects, a new field for investigation 
ha study is now laid open, whereby we are en- 
abled to learn every particular which may be 
useful to our happiness either here or hereafter; 
and this is his own divine word, as afforded us 
in, the seri tures of the Old and New Testaments. 
Through the voice of Nature we learn. the first 
rudiments; but in Revelation is to be found the 
beauty. and perfection of that which Nature’s 
rude pencil has only sketched. That God can 
make sucha revelation will not be doubted, after 
haying learned from the appearances of the uni- 
verse generally his nature and attributes; and 
that he Aath made such a revelation will not be 
necessary for me to prove, as such has been ful- 
es by Paley, Grotius, Lardner, 
halmers, and many others too numerous to 
mention. For this reason, and the prevalence 
of the Christian Religion in all civilized nations, 
Ihave thought proper to admit the scriptures 
as true, and indeed the highest source of all tes- 
timony in matters of Faith, where demonstration 
is impossible. The voice of Nature, as far as its 
testimony Teaches, is, to be sure, positive; but 
as demonstrative proofs are seldom to be obtain- 
ed, we are obliged to rest upon revelation as our 
surest guide in matters of a religious natur 
erally. And though when arguing with suc 
men as Hume and Voltaire, the light of Nature 
alone can be urged as an argument for the truth: 
of any proposition, whether in Theology or any 
other science; yet in addressing myself to Chrisg: 


sed for the purpose of scents 
: n Se ning: 


6 Set ! 
40 LECTURES ON 
tians, who submit not only to of 
ture, but af Nature’s une if far mo 4 
jime and extensive is offered, = 
Though the study of Nature be ever so de- 
lightful and pleasing, our knowledge concerning 
the Divine perfections and dispensations thence 
derived must be imperfect. Nature without the 
aid of revelation is incomplete, it is like a gar- 
den well planned and laid out, but without 
tivation. Nevertheless when this field, s 
sive in itself, is ornamented with the sweet smé 
ing odours and flowers of revealed truth, Th 
logy at once becomes a garden of roses, foreye 
fresh, forever verdant; where we may sit and ad- 


mire from day unto day, and still GR we 
with the glory and majesty which are ever ap-- 
parent in the Divine works. , Tha bet 
There is such a harmony and intimate con-- 
néxion between the voice of Nature and Reve- 
tation, that it is very difficult to continue an i 
vestigation of any of the first prinei 
Christian religion without occasionally referring 
to both, which method in a Christian land must 
be acceptable whenever pursued. Accordingly 
I haye seen proper in the diseussion of ae 
Theological proposition, excepting that of th 
Divine existence, to unite the voices 0 : 
and Revelation in support of my opinions. 


a 


Theology, therefore, as a general and impor- 


tant branch of human scienee, in th - study ‘of 
which both Nature and Revelation are to be 
carefully and minutely consulted, comprehent s 
those subjects. which relate to the rafal e! 
nature or perfections of the Supreme Being; his 
pe pores in the end and creation of the universe, 
oth material and spiritual; and also his more 


» ie 


oon shade ah, 


particular dimpailcatign® and ae to the hus - 
man family. Though our capacities, as engaged 
in the study of so extensive a subject, are no: 
more in comparison, than the feeble efforts of the. 
Babylonians to ascend to the regions of other 
worlds; yet every light upon subjects of such 
infinite importance, whether derived from reason 
or revelation, ought to be received with erati> 
tude and pleasure; every information concern-. 
ing the great and mighty Author of the universes, 
whether in relation to his nature or his works, 
is so mueh in the perfection of our own natures, 
and extent of our progress in the likeness « 

sim who is the object of our researches and stt 

A and ought to be sought after with eagerness 
and. joy by every being who feels interested in 
the welfare ¢ of his own immortal spirit, in other 
words, by every rational being. For from our’ 
knowledge of these all important subjects, every 


being who duly exercises his rational powers re- 


ceives the hope of bliss eternal in a future state. 


‘The doctrine of the soul’s immortality is found- 


ed upon the evidences adduced in the study of 
natural and revealed religion. Nothing, there- 
fore can be of greater importance to mankind. 
than the study of Divinity; and every informa- 
tioh thus derived adds to our happiness here by 
confirming us in the hope of happiness hereafter, 

To know that the soul does not end its career 
immediately when the warfare of this life is 
brought to a close, and to know that there is a 
Supreme Being who formed and governs ‘the 
universe in order and harmony , and feeds us 
from his gracious hand, is the corner a 
on which we build all our happiness a ona. 
and intelligent beings; and without tl asibik 


“ LE Pigas ‘on Se 
_s : ~ 7? 
ope, this spiritual "view of a sublimer- state ‘ia 
vorids beyond the’ grave, man is in no cts. 

‘ = periour to the ‘beasts rish. Like them 
e may spend him a Fears in the satisfae- 

tion of bats assio ns and earnal appetites, and fi-. 
nally sink. a into the pit of dark oblivion.— 
rrid thought! And can it be all our. 
hopes and all our Tongings after immortality must 
pth in disappointment and despair?» meee 8 it 


ets so base a thought. There is mething 
hich eontinually stirs within - et whis- 
er to the meditating mind, “Thou s al 
*The breeze of time wafts the delig to. 
Ose who glide plone sea’ whe- 
-ther in the sunbeams o! ates rity, or orms 
of adversity. Tt is is a subject whieh has been 
music to the-ears of those who lived ages before 
the flood, and which floods of ages'shall never 
be able to eradicate fro » huma t.— 


This was the theme in Ed 
and shall.it cease to be SIRE 
heathens have gloried i in the 0 
But to know that man was de 
nity, we must first know that there isa 
who is himself Stebel i 
knowledge an -power, and the plenitdde of his 
Goodness * never suffer a being crea 
his own ii eness, to be. extinguished b 
breath of time. Reason alone teack 
such a being exists, that there is som 
hind the scene, which, though not-to be fully 
comprehended by us, ne nevertheless. Feige and 
has existed for ages infinite, and whose natu 
and attributes. become to us important Hae 
for investigation and study. 


|” py a  ohw ) 


: “ THEeLoos. ae 
In the discussion of these, as well as allvother 
f importance, the same course of logical 
reasoning is to be pursued." Because 
are favoured with an additional fountain of 

heed brightness of revealed truth, we are not 
se that every other testimony is exelud- 
or nthiat. the voice of reason is- unnecessary. 


- Allknowledge is derived from evidence; andas 


_ the’ subjects: to be discussed ‘are important in 
ves, it will be proper to mention the va- 
-riousisources of evidence which are to he receiv- 
as the foundations of: all our green 
re 

ie "The first is thot ‘of ietinattioss:; or in éthee 

words, self-evidence. We know and intuitively 
u srstand that there are in the visible universe 
If . of various orders and descriptions; that 
“Suecessively take place, whieh, though 
he in many instances may be incompre- 
hensible, are nevertheless fertile fields for the 
‘exercise and improvement of our intellectual fa- 
culties. | Webecome acquainted with these facts, 
not fromany systematick mode or course of rea- 


‘soning, but from immediate Sika aieaye r 
ideas being derived from consciousne illnot 
admit of proof; neither issuch proof necessary, 


for selfeyidence being superiour to any other 
testimony, supercedes the use th of, even if it 
could be had. No-proposition.can be capable of 
stronger proof than that which is atiested by self- 
evidence, unless the facts given in evi 

‘more plain than those which are to be proved; 
‘and as no facts are or can toe plain than 
‘these which ‘are aitested b ness 
self-evidence, it is Paarl sa tes 
“mony beside can Siow “aly addi Phght up 


a rs 
ew 
a 4 
« i ‘ 
t on facts, the truth of whiel feanded upon the 
; first principle of knowledg te Ma, 
ings are conyinced by tei. ow i 
tional stre and ‘thie ape ah 
though we had. the. testir ron a avs oom 
* worlds, our conviction could t be made str 
er than itis. What argument, , what on He 


eould be made use of, which could strengthen us _ 
in the belief of ourown existence? To 
Des Cartes has proffered his services to uae ‘ 
who may chance to doubt their own existence. 
His argument is, Cogito, ego sum think 
therefore J exist. But if a man is 
doubt his own existence, he may as wel j 
his-own thoughts, and therefor cath of 
the argument is lost. Self-evidence or - 
ousiesstherefore isthe firstand primitive ," 
of all human knowledge; and to this ev: ’ 
feuntain of knowledge must be ener se- 
condary and inferiour. ~ Wie nd 
Demonstration is the second, an ore the 
truth thus obtained is not so imm that 


sensibly striking to the score as 
which is attested by consciousness or 
dence, yet it is as certain and infallible. “The. 
knowledge which is self-evident and that which 
is derived from demonstration are in point 
i. Aly the same; and the only difference be- 
ween, the one and the other is, that in demon- 
aos a process is required, but in conscious~ 
of the one isthe foundation, the other 
‘ In self-cvidence, we drink atthe \ 
hare a and in demonstration thro 
regular channel, although the purity. o Ay 
the same. Every conclusion, when d 


from a regular syllogism or ebncatenation of s ; : 


| PHEOLOGY. bs 


aad be true if the premises are true, 

d therefore ‘as far as we have the power of fol- 

ng this mode of f reasoning, wherein the pres 

ses are founded in consciousness, or are de- ° 
rived from < a former syllogism whose premises ° 
Ke thus founded, we have an infallible guide 
sand. ‘ecrtainty. 

‘d source of evidence in matters of 
Faith j is that of external testimony, which is ef 
various Kinds, and admits of infinite degrees of 
certainty. The highest, however, is that of Di- 
vine Revelation, where God hintself, by the 
mouths of his prophets and apostles, informs us 
of his relations and dispensations towards us in 
every point of view which is necessary or useful. 

‘This, though not to be considered of equal | 
strength with the intuitive declarations of con- 
sciousness or self-evidence, is nevertheless to be . 
depended upon as the highest and surest fountain 
of theological knowledge generally. ‘It is true 

that Christians very frequently place the same 
bee ‘in the declarations of the scriptures 
in the declarations of their own senses or the 
ray ctions of demonstrative reasoning; and some 
ed reprove me forsaying that the know- 
te is derived is inferiour to ‘that which is 
2 e of demonstration. ~ Tt will not, Hombres, 
denied by any who maturely have studied the 
fst ‘principles of human knowledge, or the rules | 
of logieal reasoning. Our own intuitive know- - 
ledge mast certain! y be received in preference to 
every other source where a possibility of error 
exists, for in demonstration error is altogether 
impossible when the premises are trtle. * 
Beside the evidence of Divine Revelation, 


_ there are other sources of Historical evidence, 


> 


ig LECTURES ON 

the strength of which depends in a great m 

sure upon the number of wi , the ria 
wledge, ; reju- 


ishness, with many : r 

iions in connexion with the same. Pri R 
tory, however, must be relied upon only:w 
the declarations thereof are consistent with | 
Divine word, which is to be considered supe 
our toevery human poocasaes cause inspi 
from God himself, wh sdom is unsez 
able, and whose truth e ns feos om generat 
to generation. From these rema ks, there! 
it will be perceived that to these two fir ; 
of human knowledge, consciousness and 
stration, in point of certainty and intalibilstyy 
Revelation itself must submit; but te Re 
all other testimony must be- considered i in 5 
that is, all historical evidence, analogy, sok eve- 
ry deduction of reason where the ops <te are 
not founded upon or cannot he nenne 9 consci- 
ousness. . ae 

With these remarks it will be 


am. 
ae 
ué 


oo must be considered our chief eu oa i 
Theological inquiries, except the reality of 1 
Divine existence; which, as I haye tore 
served, must be proved from reason alone 
gaged in the study of rational and sensib 
tences. As to the other. subjects of inve 
tion, such as the Divine providences and 1 
tions to man, his own word must be of a" 
guide; and as it is admitted by all peo 
Heathens and Infidels, or those who ir 
words may be called reasonable 3; we: 
must consider it as the general foundation: of tas 


> 
© 


) THEOLOGY. B7 


jroposition therein found must be admitted, 

though contradicted by all analogy and” 
leal evidence. Let it~ emembered, 
jowever; that it cannot be received in contradic- 
ion’ to the voice of self-evidence or demonstra~ - 
Not that the Scriptures contain any pro- 
ions that are so; and whenever we view 
em in sucha light, we are to consider our- 
selyes in error as to t emises of the demon- 
stration, or the idea which was intended to.be 
conveyed in the Divine word. Wherefore it 
must be our objeet to detect and correct our er- 
ror, and obtain a true interpretation of the scrip- 
3, When we shall at once perceive their con- 
acy, with themselves and all logical demon- 
ration, ue" 

In the investigation of all doctrinal © pointe 
this rule ought ever to be observed, that where 
our doctrines do not correspond with Revela- 
tion they are erroneous, and when they do they 
cannot be disproved. To be possessed of the 
highest degree of certainty, however; concern- 
ing the truth of our doctrines, they must corres- 
pond with eyery portion of the Divine word; we 
are not to take a verse and form a theory upon 
this, without any respect to the context general- 
ly; but on the contrary, unless our sentiments 
are consonant to every part they must be incor- 
rect. And this leads me to reflect upon the me- 
thod which many writers have pursucd in reli- 
gious controversy. They bring every particu- 
lar passage which has the least appearance to fa- 
vour their theory, and omit every one which sa~ 
vours to the contrary. And although we are 
allimperfect, and are rather inclined to show the 


wWiledge in the science of Theology. Eve- 


#. 


‘than answer'sach 
.against them, yet this is b: 


18 LECTURES ON 
reasons which support ¢ ar Of 


or honorable method. | Bye 
to arrive at a knowledge f th 
very particular in consi 
as wellas the ments in faeou of hie ystem 
Prejudice pee s been a prevailing cataract 
which tends to blind the eyes of be 

derstanding; and ’ 
will scarce ever be bet 


habit, and nelGilicdoaieel el ur opinio 
ly from reason and the word o! od 
this is a task which requires more str 
resolution than many may suppose, 
are so subject to vanity and self conceit, t 
acknowledge an error is nating lls Vie esta 
man. » THe! , ort 

. The method which I haye here adopte 
considering the various sources of evide 
the investigation of Theological subject 
eannot well be. refused, as p is found ; 
reason, ‘To besure some ctions against 
losophical and gine g speculations vs 
been made, and yet I believe without any other 
foundation than a want of ability to understand 
them. To be sure, ifthe word metay 
understood, as perhaps it was among the Grec 
philosophers, as merely the art of yaibbling 
Lat once will give my voice against 
no desire of promoting a stience whic 


ly to deceive. Pa 2 Pent Jot 
- This, however, is not the : sense i he 
word is now generally used; but on ontra- 


‘tyj it is viewed asa science ‘which brings us to. 


- 


«THECLOGY. £8 


a true knowledge of the human understanding, 
and in the study of which our rational powers 
are highly improved. 

Truth, whether derived ix one way or another, 
is good; and the only object.of philosophy is to 
discover it. The fact is, they who so.much ob- 


ject to our use of philosophic reasoning, make use © 


ef the same philosophy to prove the falsehood 
of ours. ith such men I do not wish to dis- 
pute; for they who deny. the use of reason, can- 
not be supposed to make.a proper use of it them- 
selves. Reason indeed is our distinguishing 
characteristic in this world, and without it we 
should be as ships without their pilots. Itisour 
polar star which guides us as we: wander upon 
e: vast ocean of imagination.and thought, which 
rings us to the discovery of worlds before un- 
known, and by which a fund of knowledge is 
Jaid up for our'use and happiness. _ ; 
} een regular argumentation it will be proper 
remark that two methods have been generally 
set forth by logicians, which are denominated 
the analytick and synthetick. In the first me- 
thod wearrive at the truth by tracing things back- 
ward until we arrive at the first principles, which 
is also called the method of invention. In the 
synthetic, which has also been termed the meth- 
od of doctrine or science, we are to commence 
with first principles, and continue ina connected — 
chain, until we arrive at the conclusion of the 
series. This is the method which is commonly 
pursued by writers engaged in the discussion of 
important doctrines, and is much more useful in 
affordingyconviction tothe minds ofothers, 
As. an application of the two-first sources of 
e human. knowledge, oe is, consciousness and de~ 


, 


wy 


20 LECTURES ON 
monstration, it will be valed to bring in at 


_time some of the principal arguments m prot 


the Divine existence. I am indeed inclined . 
or rather that we learn froih intuition the neces- 
sity of a pre-existent cause of all finite existences, 
and this cause is that which we call God. | In- 
tuition, however cannot teach us the nature of 


this being, but only its existence.’ Wet if it'be 


denied that we receive the knowledge of a Sus 
preme being from intuition, we haye at least the 


_proofof demonstration, which;tho’ notse sensibly 


striking, is “nevertheless as certain as the voice 


-Of'self-evidence or consciousness, As Dhave bes 
-fore said, all demonstrative knowledge is found~ 


éd upon the declarations of self-evidence, ’ 


-May be traced thereunto by demonstration, or 


syllogistic course of reasoning. The intuitive 
principles which are the foundation ofall’ our 
Wiese on this subject, are, that we and other’ 


‘beings do at present exist in space, and that be- 


ings “cannot begin to exist without a. cau and 
these are pr opesitions which need no be- 
cause they cannot be doubted: ' Therefore those 


beings which exist around us are either eternal, 


or there i is an eternal succession of finite’ beings 
from everlasting, or there isa Supreme 

who is the cause of their existence, © “That they 
are eternal, as Spinoza has endeavoured to main- 
fain, iS so absur a” that but few remarks: will be 
necessary on this point. The projectile foree of 
the planets is said. to be.continually decreasing, 


sand therefore the earth as well as all the planets 


are continually approaching nearer, es 
‘and therefore if the earth was etern ago 


oe 


jhad it fallen into the sun and been destroyed: , 


sat 


THEOLOGY. Qi 


For though this continual approach to the sun” 
be ever so small, yet it must have finally arrived. 
to the sun in a less period than eternity. Again, - 
the inhabitants of the earth are continually in- 
creasing, and had this order of Nature continued 
from everlastin g, the earth would have been o- 
yerrun with inhabitants many ages before this; 
but on the contrary we perceive that at the pre- 
sent time the greater part remains still uninhab- 
ited. Sir William Temple, if history be true, 
éntertained some ideas which were in some res- 
pects similar to those of Spinoza,.as he thought 
that the present system of things were necessary 
and eternal. And many Atheistical writers have 
endeavoured to solve the phenomena of the visi- ° 
ble universe which:appear in opposition to their 
system by saying that matter is animated, and 
necessarily such..as produces all tke changes 
whieh are visible in the universe. Such were. 
anciently called wlozoikoz,; while those who. 
supposed matter to be inanimate were called. 
alomion. None of these sects, however, with 
all their reasoning and false doctrines, are capa- 
ble of accounting forthe appearances in the earth, 
by supposing it eternal; for the necessity of an 
eternal designer is as apparént.as the reality of 
our own existence. Other arguments might be 
brought against the eternity of the visible uni- 
verse, but which, in the present enlightened age, 
will be unnecessary. i se 
That,the visible world is only the production 
ef some other material and undesigning being, 
and one of those which’‘according to the nature 
of matter has existed in infinite succéssion, is ime 
possible; for an eternal succession of finite be- 
ings, is a contradictionain terms; because ifevery 


*% F 


i 
m. 
22 oF LECTURES ON 


part of that suecessiow is finite, then-the’ whole 
is finite, and consequently not eternal-in their 
existence. There must-therefore be something 
which is extraneous, and upon which the whole 
depends. Furthermore, as it is undeniable from 
present existence that a being or beings have ex- 
isted from eternity; is it not, from the harmony 
and beauty-whieh has ever prevailed in the cre- 
ated universe, much mere reasonable to suppose 
that the same being who now exists and upholds 
the host of wandering worlds is hiaself eternal, 
the same being who created the universe from 
everlasting? Even should we perceive in, this 
earth the same disposilion-and arrangement of 
perts for the promotion of its speeies as we ob- 
serve ia the animaland vegetable-kingdoms, in 
whet respect could this lessea thenecessity of 
au eternal and-designing cause? It would on 
the contrary only heighten our admiration and 
further tend to convince us of his existence, that 
we might be enabled the more satisfactorily to 
aecount for this order so. necessary to continue 
such a succession. ‘This argument, for which I 
um indebted to Dr. Paley, at once shows, that 
were a succession of worlds possible, it would not 


be eternal, and-could not account for its own ne- 


cessary organization; for inanimate matter is al- 
together incapable of such design as would be 
required in each world to continue its species. 
We behold animals and vegetables continually 
issuing forth into existence, governed upon the 
same principles, and framed upon the same mo- 
del as the parent; yet the parent is never con- 
sidered the author of this order and harmony 
which are the distinguishing features.of the spe- 


¢ies, and from. which the species.is continued. _ 


SR Me 


Ne ‘'s 


And why, even if worlds were successive, shook 
- we attribute to each one its own cei 
specnantoieet, any ‘more ‘than in animal 
bles?-- Among the insect and v: able 
2es, it-appears that not even the idea o a suc~ 
ing vegetable or insect ever existed in the 
of either; and yet every part is duly ad- 
“proportioned with the most wis- 


j 5 ed : 4 
ie the young plant or insect finally comes 


fter a series of metamerphoses and changes, 
fect form of its original, surpassing in for- 


“Behold the lilies of the field, how they grow 
and thrive; they toil not neither do they spin, 
and yet Solonton in all his glory was not array- 
ed like one of these.’?. They are neither planted 
nor watered by the hand of man or any created: 
being, yet they are formed and beautified with 
the same unerring pencil which. must always 
surpass the’ sublimest seme and efforts of hu- 
mar wisdom. ~ 

Perhaps it will be said that these are the pro- 
ductions of Nature and not of art, consequently 
no proof of an artist. But permit me toask, what 
is this principle of Nature? Does it plan with 
skill? Does it execute with power and unrival- 
led. wisdom, -and surpass. the most sublime ef- 
forts of any finite artist? If SO, Nature itself is 
God; our end is accomplished in proving the ex- 
istenee of a Deity, for the fact'is admitted. It 
matters not to what cause we attribute those e- 
vents of the visible universe, for that cause, be 
it in what it may, is the being whom we call 
God. Net that we view God altogether in this 
light, but even were it admitted, it could be no 

objection to his real existence. les aoe Oe 


= See a Ee Ft” 
% , ae fr ‘ 


mation and beauty all the ingenuity of man. - 


eo 


Py y TO to SE CANT 8% 's Aes eee 
i # H ces = 


a4” Pag sa | 


‘We see, therefore, the nec ity of an ae 
hand which directs a ok per” 
channels, and tae ible wisdo A 
being must consequ sty est ois ; 
and essentially i in epen ent, and by whose st 
porting and upholding arm” the uni in all 
its sublimity and beauty was created ‘and pre- — 
served from the beginning, For re ever 
was a time when all v id, and er cause 
nor effect existed in unfathomed space, the same 
state of non-existence would have continued for- 
ever; - no part of existence could ease ne 
beginning without a cause ian 

the effect. 

Atheists have attributed the e ence ¥ the 
universe to an accidental concurrence of floating 
atoms, whereby the earth and all the various 
species and orders of beings, whether animate 
or inanimate, have been formed without the least — 
intention or design, and having been thus form- — 
ed, cannot cease to exisMbintil some superiour 
and sufficient cause ap r their annihilation. 


_But even this, were it admitted ,aceording t to the 


use of the word chance~by all, correct write 
does not take away the necessity of a first at 
creating cause; for though many eventsa 
sidered : accidental, they a are notconsid A 
less. A man while digging a well mighi intl 
course of his labours fall upon a ehest of 
and though this discoy ery was altogether acei- « 
dental or -chance-work; it was. not» without aa 
cause. . 

By the word chance,whenevenit is 1 
propriety ; We mean only that-s 
taken place unintentionally, ort 


asd.the cause of which we new not 


THEOLO oa 2S: 


event. Wherefore even should it bé admitted 
that the creation and existence of the visible uni- 
- was accidental or undesigned, it in noman- 


‘prove that the being and author of the uni- 
vor whom we call God, was a being without 
intelligence or design, and egnsaquently not a 


i a. teat 4 
Tn contradiction, however, to such an —— 
opinion; we have in the immense fabrick o 
creation abundant proofs of his intelligence and © 
personality; for every particle of matter testifies 
that its formation and organization were design- 
ed with wisdom and art. To exhibit all the in- 
Stances wherein the designs of the Creator are 
particularly manifested; would require a full in- 
vestigation of Philosophy, Astronomy, Chemis- 
try, Mineralogy; Anatomy, Botany, and indeed 
the whole science of Nature, for every atom is a 
beok of wisdom to those who study it. 

If, in traversing some uninhabited island, ¥ 
should discover in some conspicuous and parti- 
eular part thereof, a magnificent building, form- 
ed agreeably to some particular order of Archi- 
tecture, for instance, the Gothick. And if in 
some particular part of this building there should 
be an observatory, in which were telescopes, or- 
reries, quadrants, globes, and: all other instru- 
ments necessary for taking observations in the 
science of Astronomy; what, I ask, after having 
very minutely examined this eollection of in- 
struments and the building wherein they are 
found, what would be the most probable opinion 
which I should form concerning their> origin? 
Is it to be supposed that I should attribute their 
existence to accident or chance-work; an unde~ 


sthe necessity ofa cause. It would. 


bat a 


26° Seiten 
signed formation and ac io) of mirrors, 


convex and concave 
many other necessary appur 
belonging? — Is it-not’ likely that 4 
should attribute their bite fo the 1S « 
some eminent artist, who had planned-the sam« 
for important purposes? And eve . though I 
should not at ieee pore po for whi 
every particular instrument was de: 
would not be sufficient. tomake me belie 
naend was intended, I should still eonel 
they were the effects of contrivanee and design. 
If then, towers,, observatories, and: Astronomi- 
cal instruments cannot be formed and pt 
ther without superiour contrivance and design, 
what shall we say of the various animal and ve- 
getable existences which are continually present-_ 
echtaatee consideration, as. the source ofso much: 
wonder and admiration? What ‘shall we say of 
that noble fabriek man, formed with sueh skill, » 
and endued with such superiour powers? And 
what. shall we say-of worlds and systems of © 
worlds, formed and-governed in their several . 
motions and revolutions without a single devia- 
tion? : ‘oS ? 
Every pitiga: of the intron meee : 
fitted for the place which it fills in the multitude — 
of finite existences. The fowls of the air, the 
fish of the sea, and the beasts-of the forest, with. 
the humble worm that crawls.along the dust,are ~ 
all endowed with capacities adapted.to their se- 
veral circumstances in existence. To se 
particular species-ofanimate nature as spec 
of what, has already been asserted, will 
be at*this timeuseless. On this poin' 


pa 


) THEOLOGY, . 27 

Wc en 

proper, however, to mention one particular in- 
stance where the Divine wisdom is more parti- 
eularly manifested than perhaps in any. other 
part. of the visible creation; and this is in, the 
anatomy of the human: body, the..circulation, of 
the fluids, tl:e disposition of the bones, muscles, 
,tendons, ligaments, blood-vesse!s, glands, x nervesy 
and the like, all adapted to.our use and happi- 
ness, and performing their, several functions in 
harmony with each other to the benefit of the 
whole. The circulation of the blood,-and. the 
economy of the absorbent system are subjects of 
the greatest importance.and curiosity in the hu- 
man frame All the ingenuity and wisdom. of 
the philosophie world, wita all their plans and 
devices, could never have disposed ofa single 
atusele or fibre to greater advantage or with more’ 
propriety than has beendone by the hand of Na- 
ture. And when we see such wisdom, design 
and contrivance in the formation not only of man 
but of universal nature, what canbe a stronger 
proof of the personality of that being who thus 
formed and goyerns all things? ‘The. heavens 
declare the glory. of God, and the . firmament 
showeth his handy work. >~ Who can contem- 
plate them without acknowledging them to be 
the sublimest specimens of inanimate creation; 
and in which the superiour wisdom of their au- 
thors at all times particularly manifested ? They 
continually lecture.us in the science of Theology; 
day unto day and night unto night they inform 

- us in the language.of the. poet, 

“The hand that made us is Divine,” 

The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars magnify his 
holy name; the mighty sea waves in hoarse mur- 
murs.the. praises due to: Him 3 while the drop- 


2 


28 maine oN 


ng caverta pad ater vales in softer language 
Oe. his glory. : 

In order to prove that the universe was in its 
existence and organization undesigned, some 
have endeavoured to show that among the visi- 
ble works of creation there are evident marks of. 
irregularity and disorder, and especially in the 
human system, where disease, pain, death, and 


wnoumbered evils continually attend us) whiclt 


could not have been, were our existence and 

mation designed by a being who was infinite in 
knowledge ‘and power. Bat let me answer, 
though apparent disorder may exist in ereation, 
yet the same undoubtedly tends to the good of 
the whole; although we may be incapable of 
showing Meh arets such may be the fact. He on- 
ly who ‘is infinite in k nowledge can be a proper 
jadge in this casa He only who is fully aes 
quainted with the art of creating worlds and spir- 
itual beings, and who knows the end for whieh 


every part was intended, can be allowed togive — 


his opinions concerning the irregularity and des 


fortnity of Nature, as no being who is’ himself. 


imperfect can always judge correetly. Conse~ 
quently until our opponents possess such know- 
ledge, and become omniscent like unto their Cre~ 


ator, let them be content to remain silent con-- 


cerning the imperfections" of the universe, espe- 
eially in those points whereof they are “sean. trih | 
It is useless, however, to continue our ar 
ments in proof of an eternal, independent, and 
designing cause of the visible universe, when the 
different } parts thereof so positively confirm’ the 
assertion. And not only so, but this kind of 
evidence, the testimony of Nature, has been re- 
seived and admitted as true in every land, forthe : 


“THEOLO CY., AL) 


“inhabitants of every land from timeimmemorial 
have read in her records the being and even the 
attributes of God. 

. The necessity of such a being. in-accounting 
for the wonders of creation, is apparent to every 
sensible and intellisent mind. The learned and 
the unlearned, the Hindoo, the Turk, the Arab, 
and the American savage, with the Heathens of 
every age and nation, allalike, honour and revere © 
a being, whom they acknowledge as the invisible 
author and director of the wonders of existence. 

And though their ideas have been from time to 
time corrupted with all manner of superstition 

-and prejudice, yet they have always admitted the 
-existence of a Deity, whether worshipped under 
the name of “Jehovah, Jove, or Lord.”? And 

shail people who live in an age when science 
and moral philosophy are brought to the highest 
degrees of perfection and refinement, be more ob- 

.stinate than the poor illiterate and blinded Hea- 
then, who was favoured only with the misty 
moonbeams of knowledge and truth? Can itbe 

~ possible for any man to be so presumptuous, and 
so insensible to the honour and dignity of human 
nature, as to suppose that only a few such men 
as Paine and Voltaire with their followers are 

_ possessed of real wisdom and .knowledge, while 
the remainder of the whole human family are 
mere fools and bigots? -But alas, so it is; and 
it is_an unfortunate circumstance in the history 

» of man that his name has been so disgraced by 
the madness of such reasoners. True it is,as the 

Psalmist hath said, that none but fools can say 
‘in their hearts, there isnoGod. For after hay- 
ing considered all the testimonies in favour of 

othe existence of a Supreme Being who is the apy- 


30 LECTURES OW 


thor and ebPether of all finite existences; none 
but a being who is void of understanding,’ or at 
least makes wo use of his reasoning powers, can 
ever beso presumptuous asto deny a fact so in- 
controvertible in its nature. To every rational 
being the successive events of time are a suffi- 
cient argument of both the existence and person- 
al nature of their Author. The latter, however, 
“ will become the subject of a future lecture, and 
therefore any further remarks on WA Ean 
at the present be unnecessary. 


we ee 


: 
2 


Oo Pt RO Bs desi ee) ; ; 
ais. ee se 1 


SS 
URE Ripe 2h Mr, 

CAPR Ne ita 

4 te e: at phe 


The. Nature and Penfections of God ‘and a 


bee spiritual creatures. 
“Bromt the undeniable attestations of reason and 
common sense, we are ‘compelled 1 to acknowl- 
edge the existence ofsome Divine and ‘superior 
being, » who created the universe and isin hisexis- 
tence prior to all other beings. “Under this con- 
Viction, we are naturally | led to inquire concern- 
ing his attributes and nature génerally. When. 
We attempt to investigate a subject of this’ na- 
ture, however, we are to be calm and consider- 
ate ;, when we attem pt to look into the nature of 
so august, so sublime a being as the Author of 
the mivere: we: are at once dazzled with the 
Splendour of his glory —wwe aré confused and lost 


in ourown insignificance—we feel and know our 


A An 


liar perfections of st 


~ for.unless we know wherein per! 


Tab Perfection, if I understand the te 


ness or natural propriety, disposit 
ty.in such beings te answer the: 
_purposes. In order, howeyer, thai 


our re haa him, an 
him, for. our happiness 
ourselves so far acquaintec 
as may tend to his g 
creatures. fo underst f 
fectly. we do not ask or wish 
ledge is too high even for an 

so for man, 


But before we attempt 


n” 
ee ee Oe i 


be necessary to ascertain the standard 
to which our ideas of perfection are 


how can we say that God is perfect? Tl 
ing ascertained, our next object will be t 

that God possesses all those aa ot 7 
consists this standard. 


when appliedto spiritual bein, 
est sense of which it is capab e 


that abeing is perfect, or endowed 
attributes which render fim fit and 
ihe attainment of his own ends and 
we must. know what the 
those ends and purposes are, _ 
The only primitive and original 
which any intelligent being aets, : 
able to ascertain, is the attainment. or 
tien of happiness. We can assume 
even for the actions of the Alm 
be proper to remark, howe 
obtained i in the eternal operat Q 


PHBOLOGY $3) 


own mind, and not from transiené. 
The actions of God, therefore, 
nderhim eternally happy, whil 


ae are the cessary result of his. 
is happiness, Man in alk 
aims at something to be 


jos ala oe when the act is accom- 


times, nnot aim at future good, but acts only 


in consistency with his Sao nature, in the exer-. 


consists, his happiness. Continu- 
$5, therefore, is the end ‘and conse- 


‘ quence 0 pare the Divine attributes and their exer-. 


om ae as he exercise of them is eternal, his- 
happiness is eternal also. Weare indeed inform- 
ed from his own word, thatit is tohis happiness, 

pleasure and glory, that he exercises his atiri- 
nutes for the welfare of men; and we know. of 


3,,this s motive does not operate in God as 
it does im men; because his immanent acts be- 
in; arnal, the effect, which is happiness, is e- 
tern: also ; but with man it is. otherwise; the 

inward acts of his mind being successive and re- 
newed from time to time, his happiness is suc- 


cessive also. It is true, that the visible events | 


whieh take place in the universe through the 
agency of Ged, are successive, but these are not 
the eyents which constitute Divine happiness ;, 
they are only the effect thereof, as the Divine’ 
happiness consists in the internal operations of 
his own mind, from which all external aus 
take place. 

The attainment and preservation of ions 
being the final and grand object for which God _ 
and every spiritual being acts, our next inquiry 


but God being icfinitely happy at all” 


‘whieh any being acts. Never-" 


al 


3a LECTURES 6N 


is, what are the qualifications necessary to 

attainment? For in those qualifications c ? 
the standard of all spiritual verfe tion. In- an- 
swering this question, our evidence must be 


drawn chiefly from analogy. We know those’ 
qualifications which rende capable « of hap- 
piness, and we are to ‘conclude, that in God they 
are the same in nature, though farsup rior in ex- | 
tent. Perfection is not always infinite; but ev- 
ery thing which is good, or tends to ha ; 
is, as far as its influetice i effectual, a pe 
though perhaps a finite one. To rai there- 
fore, from the analogy of human nature eoncern- 
ing that ‘which is Divine, is altogether eorréet, 
although his perfections are infinite and ours fi- 
nite. 

That his perfectionsare in kind similar to ours, 
may be inferred from the analogy be thee 
works of creation or the visible universs 
the works. of nien or created ee ee 
manifest power, wisdom and design’in 
mation. And indeed the Divine ee 
of and confirms our mode of reasoning rm- 
ing us that the attributesef God a nan are 
similar-in kind, that we are formed afte s like- 
ness, and created after his own image. And: 
thus we find that both reason and the word of 
God unite in showing unto us that the Divine 
perfections arein kind similar to human. But 
God being an eternal spirit, and self-existent in 
his nature, must not be compared to man, as to- 
the succession of his thoughts or mode, of what, 
in maa is called reflection; fer God in all his 
thoughts and internal actions, is, as 1 have before 
said, eternal. By internal actions, 1 mean the 
operations ofthé mind or spirit, which in man 


THEOLOGY. 35 


may be comprehended under meditation, deter- 
mination, willing; and which may continue 
years and azes without producing any external 
effects. We may continue to act in determina- 
‘tion, or what in God is more properly called de- 
ereeing or ordaining, for years without the ac- 
eomplishment of any external consequences, 
And in a similar manner, the actions of design 
-and willing in the Divine being are perfectly in- 
ternal and eternal; his decrees are everlasting, 
‘although the accomplishment of these take place 
only in time. These internal acts of the Deity, 
as I have before intimated, are called by some, 
his immanent acts, as-being distinct from those 
which call forth the effect at the appointed time ; 
and his effecting acts are those which are called 
transient, because successive, and taking place in 
time; and are the natural’ effects or consequen- 
‘ees of his immanent actions.. 

With respectto his immanent acts, therefore, 
the Divine spirit is very different from that 
which is human and finite.. That reflection and 
willing are not successive in God, may be infer- 
‘red from his infinite wisdom. The successive 
acts of reflection in man are useful only in im- 

“proving our knowledge, and recalling ideas 
which have been lost; whereas God being pos- 
sessed ofall knowledge at all times, successive 
reflection and determination: would be useless. 
All the designs, thoughts, decrees-.and counsels: 
of the Almighty are only Omnipresent actiony 
in him, and therefore; though continued now,, 
are nevertheless eternakand without beginning. 

These eternalactions of God are the necessary 
eonsequences of infinite perfection; and werethey 
mot eternal, but successive asin man, they wou) 


A 


36 LECTURES ON 


be evident proofs of imperfection; for in| 
but imperfection in the Divine knowledge wou 


restrain him from perfecting his decrees and de- 
terminations from everlasting, thers showing 
that he was not sufficiently’ nae.” | with the 
circumstances of things as to fe Upthie mind 
concerning them, until other events should hap- 
pen; or he could obtain-more light upon the sub- 
ject; which, if God is Omniscient, is altogether 
inconsistent with his nature. ‘The immanent a 
eternal actions of God, as-before said, consti 
his happiness, and ee, transient acts ‘are merely 
the necessary consequences of. _ his immanent 
ones.. As the Divine happiness consists in his 
immanent actions, or the inward application of 
his own spirit, it becomes necessary in order te 
constitute his. happiness, that he should be con- 
stituted capable of such actions. To do this re- 
quires certain attributes, or what may otherwise 
be called perfections, and which, as has been be- 
fore. proved, are similarin kind to human perfec- 
tions, and which it is my object now to consid- 
er. st 
These attributes, as far as we are “acquainted 
with the Divine nature, may be generally com- 
prehended under two classes, those which are 
denominated Essential, and those which are cal- 
led Moral: In the first-class amay he-cnumera- 
ted Spirituality, Omnipotence, Omniscenge, Om- 
nipresence, Immutability, Eternity, Self-exist- 
ence, and Unity. In the seeond class are Holi- 
ness, Justice, Goodness, and Merey. . That Gad 
possesses many more attributes with which we 
abe at present totally unaequainted, ‘isn to be 


questioned, as we cannot think of | hend- 
Sng iafinity, when the minu f finite beings. 


- FRECLOGY. by a 


our grasp. As these attributes are in 
existence attested by the voice of bothrea- 
and Revelation, itis my object only to. make 
h remarks upon them as ma y tend to a better 
“conception of the Divine nature generally, or 
“may be useful in iNustrating some particular doc- 
trines, which may come under our considera- 
t -in the course of these Lectures. . 
ae behead these remar|s upon the standard of per- 
fection, it will be perecived, that if the: attributes 
_which I have here ascribed unto Deity are ade. 
quate: for. the accomplishment ofall his purposes, 
_and in their exercise render-him perfectly hap- 
py and full within himself; then we are to.pro- 
_nounce him a perfect beings and so we do, know- 
ing of no other attributes which would add j in a- 
“ny respect to his happiness or glory. And tho’ 
_ he may possess other attributes. with which we 
are altogether unacquainted, as before remarked, 
yet they are rendered means of happiness: cnly 
in being subservient to those which I have alrea- 
dy mentioned and which constitute his real, per- 
fections.. 
Those-attributes whieh T have termed Bees. 
. tial, as Oninipotence, Omniscience, Omnipres- 
ence and the like, are the necessary qualifications 
_ which every spiritual-beigg must possess in or- 
_ der to render him capable of infinite happwess. 
. These qualifications are also useless unless they 
are exercised,:and their exercise, especially in. 
God, is:indispensibly neeessary to: their oxist- 
ence, and-is known by the consequences which 
follow, as a tree is- known by its fruits 
Tn the next place, is there any particular. mode 
-or law according to,which these ‘Essential sattri- 
~ butes. of the,Deity are to be exercised? or.is.eve- 


v 


z 


38 LUCTURES ON 


is-as edeoaby ‘tothe fs 4 «ea 
cerning him, asthose altrithites wihidh bets Gate neta 
to action. This standard consists in his moral 
attributes, and which are comprehended under 
Holiness, Justice, Goodness and Mercy and the 
Divine pleasure consists in a measure exe 
ercise of his-‘Essential or Intellectual 
according to this his standard of m 
tion. It is not the effect of this exercise, 

sists in it; as indeed: we find that roe 
ness, though ever so imperfect, eatisletcaiellly 
in the exercise of our mental faculties. God ere- 
ated man only for the pleasure that he received. 


in creating him, and supports him under: the: 
various dispensations of his providenc 


for the pleasure which he receives in suppe 
him. And this’ is the great end in the 


‘plishment of which, all the events both in the 


natural and spiritual world are bree of ef- 
fected. 

The standard of perfection, therefore, consists 
in those qualifications or attributes which ave: 
necessary unto’ the attainment of happiness in 
‘the possessor, and are to be comprehended un- 
der the-general names of Power, Wisdom, Spir- 


ituality and the: like, as exercised in the ways of 


being who is more orless thus qualified, and ex- 
Holiness, Justice, Goodnessand Mercy. And that 


ercises his attributes in the way of morality and, 


religion, isin his nature more or less perfect. 
Aind from: this we sre cnablet aa correctly 
eoncerning the perfection or imperfection of ey- 


elligent being. He who is thebest qual- 
happiness, cohsequently enjoys the most;, 
ev ho enjoys more happiness than others, 
is to be known asabeing who is more perfect 

his nature, and cee of more power and 


a jae, exampleiéf what hie been afarmed, F 
the condition of our first parents while 
they were inthe garden of Eden. They pos- 
sessed more power, tiore knowledge, more ho- 
liness,and more extensive priviledges; their 

) refore, were certainly more exten - 
sive for the attainment of happiness thaa ours, 
rh ate more perfect: ‘And as far as they 
ions, they ‘became imperfect; 
be pte eve inherited the samé, being their chil- 


fale) Ot paves partakers of their fallen 
ar powers have ey tr limited 

, and consequently, so far is the ima 
eur Gal lost; and as farmas’ ve lost ie 
eee our God, so far do we want in the per- 
fee of our natures, because we’ are deficient 
jn the qualifications for happiness. The per- 
fection of every spirittal being, therefore, con- 
sists in his qualification for happiness, and if God 
js these in an infinite degree, being capabie 

of infinite happiness, he is infinitely happy: 

Previous to any thing further concerning’ the 
partidular attributes of God, it will not, perhaps, 
be amiss to staté that there is another, ae lower’ 
standard; according to which our ideas of per 
fection are sometimes regulated, and which, 
though inapplicable unto God, is applicable’ unte 
all his creatures. Por example, a clock is inten- 
ded to keep time, and if it possess every qualifi- 
sation for that’end, it is to be considered a per- 


Oe 


4 


Set clock, and it beco 
ssdisqualified to aid 
be called passive penf 
ness to answer, all th 
signed by the were 
is “applicable unto man; b 
tare designed by his Crea 
eadsand purposes in the, 
his ,universal kingdom. «4 
answers the end to whi 

created, I think, cannot-b eke 
who maintains thepevfee 
for whieh man was- -— 
have before intimated 
God, and he answers t send 
well, as another; in his. dar 
tion. Were we to admit -f 
would be"obliged to. adtinit 4 ih 
frustrated i in his designs, w whi ' 
nipotent and bag age i 


That th no ch} 
i answ ers the en iy 


creatéd must also be admitte 
principle; for unlesshe does, 
that God, ither for want of wis 
power to accomplish, was ine 
such a being as he intended. Thi 
tween the ends to which and f 
being is-created, may perhaps n 
tion. : The end to which a 
of the keeping of time, and | 
create a machine for the kee 
happiness, comfort aad conveniense er 

way the ends to which man was ¢ La 
signed are both salvation and d: 
as sickness, disease and ironegie’ ab 
world, and man fully answers the 


“-GHoroey. ay 


for which God’ designed and created bei gs 
salvation and damnation was his own Pp 
d Glory. Perhaps it will be denied t t 
ath any pleasure in the death. of sinner $,as 
ftis said in the scriptures, “as: I live, saith the 
‘Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicks 
ed; but that the wicked turn from his way and 
z ive.” ‘Ezekiel xxxili—1l. ‘This, however, is 
o be taken in an individual sense, implying that 


the damnation of an individual afforded him no 
( a harcore than his salvation, provided. that 
*h had Barrdrniawany other part of. the 
le works ; yet-when we consider the do- 
isa in a general point of view we must 
edge that the damnation of souls as well 
as their Bisisa, must be in some measure sub- 
_servient to his glory when viewed in relation to 
; for if such was not the ease, God 
di ever ‘have created such as he knew would 
bate, and.as he does nothing but what 
does t tend to: his glory, so the. damnation of the 
wicked must do the same 
‘Therefore, in this lower sense of the word 
perfection, man is in no respects imperfect, be-. 
“cause he answers all the Divine designs, whetter! 
by obedience or disobedience, salvation or dam- 
nation. But perhaps you will reply, if sinners 
-answer the ends of their creation as well and as 
fully as the tighteous, why are they not equally 
rewarded? I answer, rewards are not bestowed 
because we answer the ends of our. creation; but 
because we take that method in answering them 
which is consistent with the moral nature of God, 
and which he requires at our hands. But per- 
heps you will again. ask, can man answer the 
ends of his creation, without pursuing the way 


ko 


appointed by 
doing his « 
‘Pharaoh was Solara up. 
for the express purpose of 
and power of God thr 
how did he answer, this ap 
created? Was it in the pe 
Far otherwise. It was on 
bellion against God. Neve 
the Divine purpose as well eit l 
righteousness and holiness. It 
rocure him a reward 
ae done; but, on the co 
punishment. Thus we s 
as well as the righteous a 
the ends of their creation, 
fect when viewed aecordin 
ard, which is applicable unt 
To say that it is the aay 
the end of his creation is a 
is a duty implies in the. ee 
power, it implies a law comme 
plishment of certain thin 
plies Free Agency. But in 2 
of our creation liberty is nol 
ean be without giving man power | 
the intentions of the Deit big 9 : 


correspond only. with thea first s¢ 
have defined them. I therefore 1 
ther consideration of the Divin 
which have been enumer ated.as qu 
‘pure happiness. ‘ 


“From these remarks it will be perceived that 
~when we speak of the perfections of God or of 
any other intelligent and spiritual being as such, 
We mean a capacity and fitness in such beings 
for the attainmentand enjoyment of happiness. 
As their capacity consists in the several attri- 
_butes which.I have ascribed unto God, and which, 
in a finite degree, belong to all his spiritual erea- 
‘tures; so he who possesses a greater share of 
these attributes, possesses the greater happiness 
and perfection. And as this capacity or qualifi- 
cation in the Deity is infinite and infinitely im- 
proved, we must pronounce him, so far as we are 
gapable of knowing wherein perfection consists, 
a being infinitely perfect. And in the same pro- 
portion, that men and angels possess the same 
-qualifications or personal attributes, so far may 
they -be considered as perfect. 

It-will not be necessary for me to’state that 
“these attributes of knowledge, power, and others 
which I have ascribed unto the Deity, are quali- 
fications for happiness; for I presume that eve- 
ry person possessed of them, learns this from ex- 
gperience. Wherefore, I now proceed to make a 
few remarks upon ‘these attributes as possessed 
by ithe Deity, and show some reasons which 
prove them to belong: anto him. Nature alone, 
were no other testimony admitted, is sufficient 
to confirm the fact; yet when we consider the 
declarations of the Divine word, every doubt 
must vanish, and our conviction becomerclear as 
the noon day. 

Who can deny the Omnipotence and Omnis: 
eence of God? We behold the hest of wander- 
ing worlds which glide along the mighty -con- 
#ave, of blazing comets performing their 4 AM) 

E 


444 LECTURES 6N 


amense revolutions in their appointed seasons)— 
“We behold the earth, the ocean, andthe sky; r@ 
lete with beings formed in beauty harmo; 
Ee and to rac ean eth Hy unta 
a God who is wise and powerful beyond com: 
prehension? He who can do these things, what 
ean he not do? He who can so wisely direct 
the operations of the universe, what can he not | 
know? “He that planted the’ear, shall he not 
hear? He that formed the eye shall he not see? 
He that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not 
know??? Psalm xciv—9, 16. «We see no limits 
in the immensity of his works, and ean ascribe 
no bounds to hispower. Weare not tosupp 
that it is exhausted; that all which could have 
_ been done is done; but onthe contrary, he who 
could bring into existence one wera could — 
breathe forth millions more, and*find no stay to” 
his Almighty ‘arm. ‘When -we consider the na- 
ture of man, who is even a miraele unto himself,’ 
we have an unparalleled proof of the infinity of 
the Divine knowledge and power. “We view! 
ourselves as the Lords of this lower world, and» 
trace our origin from age to age, and from gene- " 
ration to generation, and in every portion of our 
inquiries we are astonished at the powers of the” 
human mind, the extent of his imagination, ‘the | 
progress of his towering genius, the extent of his — 
ambition, and his endeavours to rise from per- ’ 
fection to perfection, and indeed at his intellec- ° 
tual faculties generally. 
In this once noble and happy being, the re- 
licks of which, are even now visible, asa temple 
“in ruins, do we behold a living image of the Dei- 
ty, thongh now fallen and degraded; possessed 
of all the known and personal attributes of his. 


_ THEOLOGY,, 45 


Creator, though ina very limited degree, such 


as wisdom, power, spirituality aad intelligence 
_ And when we behold a finite being 


endowed with powers which are capable of al- 
most infinite improvement, it must evidently ap- 
pear that none but a being whose powers are in- 
finite, could thus wisely direct the organization: 
and formation of such a creature as m mipP “The 
Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth, by un- 
derstanding he hath established the benueing 
Prov. i—19. “O Lord, how manifold are thy 
works; in wisdom hast thou made them all.” 
Psalm civ—24.~ 
oPhe Divine Omnipotence’ and Omnistence 
may very. properly be considered: as arguments 
proving. Pm presence. For he who is capa- 
of kn < and doing all things, at all times, : 
hy: places, must be ev ery “where present 
at t] e time; as a being cannot act where he 
is. note. Andgtherefore his capability of acting in 
iafinite space, proves tha fills immensity. 
As we perceive no limits"in the extent of the 
ereated universe, or in the sBccession of passing 
events, we must at least suppose that he who go- 
verns in infinite s must be Omnipresent. 
Matter is of itself inert, and incapable of begin- 
ing motion, or continuing the same when begun, 
without some supporting power; and without 
some extraneous principle of action and motion, 
the revolution of planets and the succession of: 
animal and. vegetable existences could not be 
’ continued for a moment; consequently wherever 
there is motion, there is the hand and power of: 
God. Perhaps it will be said, motion and the 
ordinary operations of physical powers are con- 
tinued-by the commen laws of Nature, the at- 


Cd 


‘ 


a 


traction of gravitation, the Centripetal and"Cén. 
trifugal forces which in balancing each other;! 
are the support of all planetary motions. But’ 
as I have before intimated, the efficacy of the 
laws of Nature depends altogether upon the con- 
tinued agency of an intellectual being. Lawsare - 
aot agents, but only rules according to which a-- 
gents operate; and as matter in and of it- 
self, has no power to cause any effects, the rules. 
which are observed in the operations of the uni- 
verse, are no more than rules which an intelli- 
gent being observes in the suecessive accomplish- 
ment of his. works. Motion must commence~ 
from action originally, and continued motion ean 
be supported only by continued action. It is: 
4 who upholds all things by- “er } of his... 
power, and wherever we behold om ‘ 
pebble, there do we perceive the i * 
manifested presence of God. “Whither,” saith 
the Psalmist, “shall. } flee from ‘presence? 
If I ascend up int ven, thou art there; if I> 
make my hed in hell, behold thouartthere; if F 
take the wings of tH®morning and d 


“a the 
uttermost parts of the i there 


hand: lead me, and thy rig \d shall Hold 
“The heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot: 
contain thee. Psalm cxxxix—7,8, 9; 3 Kings 
vili—27. ve 
With respect to the Unity of God, the light of: 
Nature declares only a unity of council, while’ 
the scriptures supply the deficiency of the oo 
of Nature, by declaring that there is but one: 
the Father. Every plant.and vegetable which 
springs forth in the fields are formed upon one. 
general plan, and are possessed of similar proper- 
ties. All vegetables are supported and nourish~- 


THEOLOGY. : 
oi the air, theearth, a: 


pee tbe same; covered wit 


> oe ne Eeoened pd seed. rng ft : 
in which causes a stone to fall the ear 
as the moon in her revolutions*round | 


tis soles in ety ees 
ith ites in their. appoiht- 
lutions round their superiours. The same 
prevails in this world, is observed 
Tit ott cg ae 
a greater or le . « ac sur- 
rounded with an-atmosphere similar to our own, 
each warmed and enlightened by the ch 
revolving upon its axis, as the fittest mode for the 
pie a a and heat, and each re- 
» months, ataee Om if y 
This: rmity of planat once a 
of council, which must have e: di in the OFr- 
ation and support of the visible universe. 
urthermore, that there is:but one God, is ren- 


dered highly probable circumstance 
that is necessary. “who co form 
‘one. lor universe could ‘for: e wh 


could organize one animal or veg eee or- 
ganize various genera and: species; and for this 
reason “me may much more consistently believe 
that all the operations of created Nature are de- 

sy een ga ramtie many,, - 
; 9 weep coats aun 


pies or inant, yet f ae : <A 


, 26x85 


ane in roof of the ity 

found Deut.iv—35, 39; wit xxxii- 

+26; Sam. -otcsaes 1 Chron. xv— 
xvilie-81+ cx] viti<2T8# tana, 15:! 


“James ti— -9; iv-—12: 1 Tims. »Re to 
30. John xvii3, and mati pass e), 
He that is one God m st be et 
existent. This may be inferre 
already been said concer 
of — and finite’b ht 
ist without a cause who i e 
ings. . And so, if there is a being w , 
his existence to-all finite beings, he must him- 
self be infinite} eternal, and eater ne has : 
were he not so, hie? could not’ 
' beings, himself being finite. 
which we i Beetle thas : 
we must conelide that he whois their author is 
without a beginning, eo 
from everlasting to everlasting the 
Jehovah; By therm self-existent,’ 
to suppose that God is his own author, 
ereated himsélf; for God is ~uneczeated oars 
out an author; but that he exists in and of him- 
self, and cannot cease'to exist, his existence being 
essential. and. inevitable “Phe ‘Father hath life, 
in himself”? John v—26. “Fis. daysare notas” 
the days “man, neither ean: the 
years be earched out.”? Job xxvi 
further, he is the only being w ovis eterng 
ont beginning of days ore 
‘1s -the first and thelast. ¢ 
tt the King of Israel, and his- 


‘PHEOLOGY: : 


of hosts "I ‘enh Pree ana Re m-the: Last 
sees | is nO God. h xliv—6. 
eA 2 Omnipotence | aiosnicaasins 
the’ Deity,-'and ‘his attributes | generally, 
ave been so so gloriously ‘manifested in: these: 
peation, we may alsovlearn that he is 
ual béing. Personal powers. are-always:indit 
‘ofta spiritual-nature; at least-from_ anale 
- ; é only inference which ‘ean be dras ; 
ey = ae tas far as we are aequaint- ° 
ad, “not Hs on a material substance; * 
eimai — the human ‘proved 
from a variety-of testimonies. - By the amputa- 
tien ofa limb we findythat the mind is in no res- 
pect impaired ; ‘we retain the’same reasoning fa- 
culties as well without as with those members ; 
and"even’ with | the toss of our sensitive faculties © 
_Renemlly sigs he major part, we find’ no di- 
“mint tt Owers ¢ of imagination and re- 
flection? "The~immateriality of the soul,.howe- 
Ver} isn mitted? by” a :all men; and as 
“we perceive a’similar inteHigence im the Deity 
-as~itfhuman nature, by whieh all things have 
been desighéd anid executed,»we must also attri- 
bute: him that spirituality which necessari- | 
toevery designingand acting beings 
peor chro who is capable of designing and exe-~ 
the works of Creation with such wisdom, 
and goveruing thesame Without a single devia- 
tion for thousands of years, must bein his nature. 
eriour to senseless. matter, and: altogether 
omit. No organization of matter, 25 
ceive, can produce thdse. mutual opé- 
C oe in ourselves; and 


rm in. preme ‘Beingymanf i-** 


me $ | % e- m.: ya *"¢ 7 - % in i. 
. i? 
- « ’ 4 ’ fo 


é 


"3 LECTURES ON 
Pho nelude dco that theysare'the attributes of e 


similar substance. Not that we suppose they 
ial’ spirit) of nineteen oie 
. a 2 
jefor that: 


ich fills immensity, arr 
its dhtatidy: infinite, ona 
‘soul whichis created and finite.” “He is 
-and invisible, whom no 

eanisée at: any time, tho 
every one of us;’? far: beyon P prir 
and powers, who was, andvis, 2 
“God is aspirit; and they the 
must worship ares in ‘spirit.and’in:truth.” Johny 
iv—24. ye Are as ehegge? 

God is his immutable. * haps eat 
ther pure and perfect Repo essere 2 
ter, and he who is all-wise 
not suffer himself to be sons 
consequently ‘as to his j en A 
he must remain forever the same: ‘He i 
table, however, at only if his nature a 
fections, but in his counsels and di 
same perfection which prevails: in is: 
apparent in his designs and will; ; dtl therefore 
_his wisdoniwilk ot, suffer them 
for the same’rea 1 
change his nature. ume immu= — 
tabilty which prevails ‘in the one ‘is is necessary 
in the other, one being the consequence of the 
other: that is, ‘his counsels and desigt 
from his wisdom and anc 
dom is-perfect, his detent and “attic 
perfectalso. A change in his counsé}siand deter 
_ nations would be: altoge inconsi tent, noi 
“ly with ‘his attributes, but his’ word. 
himself he saith, “I changemot’” 

. ye . ‘ ' t 


r 
. Bikey 
¢ . ev" Very a 
» 


THEOLOGY, 6k 


#Thereare indeed diversities of operations, but 
% is the same God which worketh all in all.” 
1 Cor. ii6) We change our counsels and d 
signs only when, with more light and informa-— 
tion, we perceive, or think we perceive, that our 
first intentions were incorrect, and not founde 
in wisdom; and this isthe only use which can oi 
assigned fora change in our determinations at. 
any time; namely, that’ we may act-with mere’ 
wisdom and certainty. But God, whose wisdom 
is always the same, cannot become changed in 
his purposes, because he cannot «become : wiser, 
By this attribute we may learn that the promises 
and threatenings of the Almighty must inevita- 
bly be fulfilled inthe end. His law’ must stand 
firm amid the destruction. and overthrow of alt 
human authority, neither shall one jot or tittle 
from the same until all be fulfilled. But. 
Peo t may be asked,,if God in all his designs. 
purposes is forever unchangeable, of what 
use are all our prayers, and praises, and deyo- 
tioos?, Do-wenot render supplication unto our 
God, and perform all those spiritual duties which. 
areincumbent upon usas Christians, in order that. 
we may move God.to favour us with his bless* 
e, and by his mercy to deliver us from all evil, 
pre change his providences towards us for the 
better? But ifhis determinations-towards us 
are immutable, what effect can our prayers have 
upon his conduct? To this I would auswer,. 
Firstly, that because the-Almighty. deals differ-. 
éntly with his creatures at different times, this is” 
no argument in proving him to be a mutable be- 
ing. “Because ajudge gives one case forapd an-- 
other against. me, I have no reason to call"him a. 
mutable judge; for the particular cieumstances. 


-. 
= 


-tmmutable, for he ‘hath~ promiged that 


G2 | LECTURES ON 

of the ease may require such a mode 

if he always eeably to the decrees 

law, then he is to be pins larry 

} have no cause to complain: » Secondly, as aap 
nd the determinations 


pects our prayers a 
it will be proper to remark thatthe effect is not 


‘intended to be upon God. but'upon ourselves: 


H God designs to bless eee. 
supposition that F «shall be a proper subject of 
such a blessing;. and to make ourselves proper’ 
subjects of the Divine: blessing, we must: fit our-* 
selves by prayer and devotion. By our prayers,’ 
therefore, we are only rendered proper subjects ~ 
for the reception of the Divine favour,and by: 
his immutable designs i in nchieteiamne aa 
those who ask a blessing atghi 
sings are. bestowed. » » And | did he-not .bestov 
them according to his own inmncndaceas ehs 
would then become mutable.» The answei 

our prayers therefore is only aproo 


ask shall receive. “The anna 
standeth forever, and the thoughts ics 


all generations:”” Psalm xxxiii-——1}. 
the Lord of Hosts, I am the Lord, I ehange noty, 
Xam that I am, this issmy name forever; this is + 
my memorial unto-all-generations.’? Mal. iii— 
5,6. Exodus iili—14, 15. “With whom is no* 
variableness, neither ‘shadow-of turning.” James - 
i—17.- He is unchangeabie both in essence and- 
perfections; he can never cease to be swhat he-is,‘ 
and what he is, he was from everlasting. rhis™ 
Respecting the essential attributes of the Deity 
hittle further may be said; the certainty-of* es 
eonfirthis personality as "far as is necessary 


® to know, We. have fully shown.the unpar~. 


THEOLOGY, — 53 


dileled wisdom’ necessary for the creation and 
support of the universe; and we have shown that 
every intellectual-power belonging unto man, is 
possessed also of the Deity. And though per- 
sonality is considered by some writers as a dis- 
tinct attribute, yet it is in fact no more than the 
first principle of intelligenee generally. Every 
being who is possessed of rationality and can 
eonsider itself as itself, is to be considered a per- 
son; wherefore personality consists in that facul- 
ty which’is called consciousness, or a power of 
perceiving that the ideas and knowledge which 
we possess are our own and not another’s. And 
this knowledge or consciousness is possessed by 
every spiritual and intellectual being. God_is 
particularly represented in the writings of St. 
Paulas a person, and possessed of every qualifi- 
eee render -the pronouns’ I, thou, and 
“he applicable unto him. ~OurSaviour is called 
the express of his person, as upholding all 
things by the might of his power. Any thing 
further, therefore, concerning the personality of 
God will be at present unnecessary, as I shall 
consider the same more distinctly when discuss-’ 
ing the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. 

» From aconsideration of the essential attributes 
of the Deity, 1 am now led to make a few re- 
marks upon those which are termed Moral, such 
as Holiness, Justice, Goodness and . Mercy. 
When we enumerate all the most noble and vir-’ 
tuous affections belonging unto man, and apply 
them unto Godin aninfinite degree and without 
corruption or imperfeetion, we form the best idea 
of God which is in our power, though infinitely 
short of the reality. In speaking of the holiness 
of.men and angels, we understanda purity of the 


> 


$4 ‘LECTURES ON 


‘heart and affeetions which eannot well be 
bed, and which in aymeasure has some re 
to all the moral attributes of our spiritual nature. 
It is by this that we are inclined to ayoid sin and 
live agreeably to the rules of religion and virtue. 
But when we turn to a contemplation of the Di- 
vine Holiness, we are lost as it were in wonder 
and amazement; we are blinded by its radiant — 
beams, and must cover our faces in shameand re- | 
proach. © All that we are to conceive of 
this glorious attribute, being from analogy er 
revelation, must of course be but dust in the bal- 
ance. With him all is pure, all is perfeet, and 
consequently all is holy, either.as respects his 
natural dispositions -or actions. Ati is an attri- 
-bute apparent in all his revelations, and especial- 
ly in his providences and dispensations towards 
man. He has prescribed unto us those prccdmrs 
‘which are the most proper for the attainment of 
happiness; he has given unto usa ‘Moral Law, and 
therein requires strict holiness at our hands; he 
has shown his detestation to unholiness,by threar’ 
tening and deereeing punishment all aio 
who walk in-the ways thereof; and we 
ny instances recorded where his- Aemaiesinen 
‘have been fulfilled upon the disobedient children 
of this world. Weare positively informed, that. 
without Holiness no man shall see the Lord;, 
therefore, we are to conclude that in requiring 
such purity in his creatures, he has abundantly 
manifested his own purity and Holiness. “The. 
Lord is righteous inall hisworks,”? Psalmsexly.. 
17. “There is none holy as the shen conan 
ii. 2. 
The Goodness.of God may bertahecinie ie 
‘position or inclination to exercise his different . 


se OLOGY. 55 


away which shall be productive of 
ific ations im his creatures which are 
; ndering them capable of happi- 
is is an attribute which shines brighter 
hte r as we continue to advance in the 
nowle Ige of God and his dispensations towards 
1S. every portion of-our lives do we experi- 
nee the influence of its enlivening beams. By 
lave we been pérmitted to taste the fruits of 
istence, and the blessings of this life, in addi- 
to sich, we havé the promise of a glorious 
i hereafter. The foibles of youth, the 
enjoyments of manhood, anc the consolations of 
e are all derived from the -good will of our 
enly Father. “He is good to-all, and his 
ender mercies are over all his works.” Psalm 
exiy—9. Even the beasts of the field may praise 
him, as they also ~have experienced: his bounty 
according to their capacities. But above all, man 
2ems to be the greatest object of this attribute 
of. any earthly being, though perhaps the inhab- 
itauts of other worlds have received the same 
blessings at his hands: When we contemplate 
the crowns of everlasting glory which are laid 
up for those who love the Lord their God with 
their whole heart and mind, and their neighbors 
as themselves, how can we refrain from exelaim- 
ing in astonishment, “What is man that thou art 
mindful of him, and the son of man that thou 
visitest him?” His goodness is not to be mea- 
sured by ourgratitude. Though we are unwor- 
thy the least blessing, no, not to pick up the 
crumbs under his table, we are invited to a par- 
ticipation in those which are eternal. “Every 
good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh 
down from the Father of lights.” James i—17. 
¥ 


we gO Su 
ence 
_w 


56 LECTURES ON 


To enumerate all the particular instances W wh one 
in his goodness has been parti larly manife 
towards us, would be to ae ete pe Listo 
of our lives, from the cae w Mebacsnce first 
grace our infant cheeks, until tate into the 

owly chambers of the dust. sae would 
_praise the Lord for his goodness, ier me Pal 
erful works to the ehulcire: of 

evii—8, 


strict CaF to his rights, and the rij ghts 
" creatures, according to a certain aw, with < 
termination to exercise his, power and authority 
in causing these rights to he satisfie ‘in the 

which that law has pointed out. » All rights, 

vil or ecclesiastical, or of any other denomin 
tion, except perhaps the natural right of God to 
do as he pleaseth with his own, are derived fom 
existing laws. . The laws, according to whie 
man may possess aright to the ea pein aoe of his 
maker, were given of God himself Or=, 
ding to that law or covenant which was institut- | 
ed between God and man, both the Creator and, 
’ -ereature are bound to abide. God being the au- 
thor of man, as wellas of all his happiness either, 
in this world or that which is to come, possesses, 
on account. of this his goodness, a natural right 
to perfect obedience from him, and therefore 
full power and authority to impose upon him, 
such laws as he shall see fit to appoint. ‘Perhay 

it will be well to remark, however, that consis- 
tently with his attributes, he ean appoint ‘no 
laws but such as in some way tend to his” alla 
glory, or the welfare of his creatures; 

cordingly we find that it is by those rei B,. “that 
happiness is rendered accessible unto us. “As 


“THEOLOGY. st 


34 right to demand 6bedience from 
nan is in consequence thereof bound to o- 
tad furthermore, 1 man, according to the 
which God in his covenant made unto 
possess a title to rewards and punish- 
ling to his performance or non-per- 
of the Divine commands; and God, 
confo Paty to his attribute of Justice, is hound 
to sati fy this right. The nature of this law be- 
eer ind man, though discoverable in part 
ym the visible works of the universe, is chiefly 
made by his Revelation; and aecording 
thereu , Justice will be fully administered, or 
in oth ords, rights will he perfectly satisfied. 
ae ‘Ge work Of d man shall Ke render nto 
, and cause every man to find according to 
8 ways, ” Job xxxiv—ll. “He will not t lay 
upon man more than right, that he should enter 
Fatd patric with God.” Job iv—23. “Is not 
my way equal? saith the Lord. Are not your 
ways unequal?” Ezek. xviii25. 

Mercy, t though generally considered a faistines: 
attribute o ithe Deity, i is perhaps little more thaw” 
a partic modification of his Goodness. It 
consists in a particular disposition or readiness 
to do goo I, by delivering from pain or impend- 

* lisery, and is one of the most conspicuous: 

utes of God. Without passing through a 
fall investigation of the gospel history and doc- 
trines therein found, it would be impossible to’ 
give even the outlines of the many blessings 
whie ‘have been conferred upon us in this par-. 
ticular way. By this are we, who are naturally 
unclean and unholy, permitted to purify our- 
selyes in the blood of the Lamb; and become 
spotless in: thé | of our Heavénly Father: te 


58 LECTURES ON 


eseape the pangs of everl 
ed for the deyil e 
querors over death shell, 
ly to mount-up. on ea 
mortal in the skies. It is 
spring from on high hath vis ite 
to them that sit in darkness anc 
of death, to guide our feet ‘into t 
Luke i—78, 79. 

Knowing our un worthies n 
positions which continual] 
and war agaiast the soul, we 
tonished in oct a 
kindness of God, as manifested 
various dispensations of his p 
fore nothing should so engage os 
to render usin the least a 
ly privileges which we now 
joy under the glorious dispensat satio 
nant of Grace, t nor negligent in th 
‘of those duties which, according to 
gratitude alone compels us to ackne 
just. ‘Though he cause grief, yet w 
compassion according to the multity 
mercies;. for he doth not afflict willi 
grieve the children of men.’ 

A different definition ai ™ cy 
been given by some, wherein itis ou. 
mercy consists in the dimin inasion ustic 
that the demands of justice satisfied, 
sentence of the law being in some par 
cumstances repealed. This may et in 
human laws, and in the ministration thereof}. 
but with God the demands of justice 
perfectly fulfilled. God isir mmutable, a 
sgeyer he hath said . cannot e rec 


r 


. 


THEOLOGY. . 5g 


a God that cannot repent, because his ways are 


! ae eal There aap. when. we speak of Di- 


vine Merey, we must define it in sucha way as 
shall be perfectly consistent with his Justice. 
Man isa being very far gone from original right- 
eousness; and because he hath rebelled against 
his God, Justice demands punishment, and pun- 
ishment. must be rendered. Yet as God is a be- 
ing of infinite goodness, and wishes not the death 
_ of a sinner, he hath, from his disposition to mer- 
" ey, appointed a way in which both Justice and 
Goodness may be fully exercised, while man is 
delivered from punishment, which will be more 
fully illustrated in a future ‘lecture. 

Ihave been more lengthy upon the subject of 
the Divine perfections than I had originally in- 
tended; yet as they constitute an important part 
of the first principles and ground-work of all 
Christian Theology, perhaps I have not said too: 


_ Much.. 


~ +. 
60 \ LECTURES ON 
; Apa LS SOpee? 
s 2 sae i¢é tae a 
zeorvaei ei 
ee VAR Dade Ss hoisted ne Hit | 
Bigs Spent ante 


In my last discourse I ndeavourec 
brief and comprehensive view of the 
Perfections of the Supreme Being. 1us 
undoubtedly, as heis a perfect being, act in eve 
ry point of view consistently ; neither ean 
his attributes, either in their existence or exer- | 
cise, be opposed to cach other; for a perfect God 
cannot be divided against himself. Cons 
__ly every doctrine which is contrary to, 0 
sistent with, either of the Divine attributes, mot 
be considered erroneous. 

To the remarks which have already vd inade 
concerning the being and attributes of God, it: 
will be proper to add, that by those attributes. 
which I have denominated Essential, I mean 
those which are essential in constituting him 
such a being as he is, such a Meh Fs aby Di- 
vine being must be; but not that they constitute, 
according to the opinions of Dr. Doddridge and 
some others, his real or substantial essence, 
Meehanism, for example, is that which is indis- 
pensably necessary in the constitution of a ma- 
chine, yet mechanism is not the subsisting es- 
sence or matter of that machine, Extension, fi- 
gure, colour, divisibility are the essential attri- 
butes of matter, yet extension, figure and divisi- 
bility ere net in themselves the ‘essence of mat- 


PHEOLOGY, 6Y 


ter; but-matter is something which is extended, 
figured, and capable) of division. And such is 
our conception of a spirit or mind; it is not cons 
sciousness, thought, or volition, but something 

ch is possessed of consciousness and volition, 
And as our ideas of the Deity are derived from 
analogy, we are to suppose that the attributes of 
Omnipotence, Omniscence, Omnipresence, and 
Spirituality do not ppetints the Divine essence, 
but are perfections which belong to that essence, 
being distinct from it. 

I have introduced these remarks merely to 
warn my readers against such an error, lest in 
the discussion of the important doctrine which 
is the subject of this discourse, my ideas should 
not be perfectly understood. Whereas I have 
made it my object to show the consistency of a 
Trinity of Persons:in the Unity of this one es- 
sence, which is called God, and to which belong 
the attributes already named. . 

In entering upon a subject of this nature, a 
subject which has been a rock of offence and a 
stone of stumbling for ages; a subject which has 
engaged and continues to engage the talents of 
the most learned’ and eminent Theologians, I 
eannot but feel my own littleness and insignifi- 
cance. Ff cannot but feel that like all other men, 
I am fallible, and therefore cannot expect that 
my opinions will be infallible. Yet I feel it my 
duty, so far asin me lies, to throwin my mite in 
endeavouring to spread the knowledge cf the 
truth among mankind. ‘The scriptures, as far 
as their testimony goes, are undoubtedly to be 
received as the standard of all truth; but it ap- 
pears that the learned of this world are in their 
opinions. yery much divided concerning that: 


62 LECTURES ON. 


which the scriptures really do teach; and’ this’ 
truth’ and falschood have heeome so a ae 
blended together, that a proper designation is 
rendered very difficult. And for this reason I 
have made it my object, in the present lecture, 
to render the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly 
consistent with the attributes of the Deity, espe- 
cially his unity, without the use of seripture lan- 
guage. ~ 

One great objection to the doctrine of the Tri- 


nity in Unity is, people do not understand it; — 


and for this reason, many do not eonsider them- 
selves bound to assent unto it a§ expressed in 
the language of Athanasian writers. In sayin 

that people do not understand this doctrine, I 


wish to be understood as implying, that they do . 


not understand what is the-subject of their faith. 
It'is not necessary that we should become ac- 

quainted with every truth that is: connected with: 
the subject; itis necessary however that we un- 
derstand the articles of our faith. We may be- 
lieve in many facts, the nature of which we do 
not fully comprehend, or we believe in the exis- 
tence of many facts although we cannot eompre- 
hend how or why they exist; and such is alto- 
gether consistent with our nature; our minds 
having been corrupted and our imaginations de- 
praved by sin and iniquity. Yet,though we can 
not comprehend every truth which may be con- 

nected with the subject of ourfaith, we must at 
least understand that subject so far as we make it» 
a subject of our faith: for-we cannot believe un- 

less we know the subject of our belief; indeed: 
we cannot believe a proposition of any kind un= 
Igss we understand the meaning of the terms 

madeuse of. For example, if a person speaksa 


THEOLOGY: 63 


nknown 1 language, and then. 
you believe ‘his? 
y answer Lean say neither yes ~ 
| be sure I may believe in the credi- 
spe eaker generally and therefore may. 
s trut atthis particulartime. 
show not to belieyein the” 

hones for there is no subject: 

erstanding as.a-matter of be-: 

oposition is in an unknown 
ithout a subject to be believed faith 
- Therefore, tosay that we believe - 
in the doctrine of the Trinity while we know not 
what that doctrine jis, is altogether’ aheiresss. : 


ear to be as much divided con-. 
Poise of their ee he. 
plainin it as those who of op- 
inions. For imstance, Mr. Baxter, as - 
we the schoolmen, seems to have su 
bey that there was one God, who Suleeeoal 
willed and loved himself; and that wisdom, pow- 
_and love were calledhis different persons. 
Philip dd ridgeagain uses the word person in: 
two different senses, pilcenmhice! and political; 
ses’ that in a philosophical sense, 
s the true and common sense, there can 
hy poogyeesorte but in a political sense there 
and he illustrates his meaning by 
Dg ¥ e Seg Bi parison of a man who is at the. 
father, husband and son; or of a prince 
ingof Great Britain, Dukeof Bruns . 
Treasurer of the Empire; being thrée: per= 
s in a political sense, but only one in a true 
sos philosophical sense. Watts appears tohave. 


64 LECTURES ON 


favoured this theory in some | 
ned more to the Sabellian syste 
who have €ndeavoured to expl 
have in effect denied it, manife 
gree of doubt and uncertainty conc 
particular matter which the k oul: 
tablish as subjects of thei¥ fait! yar 
ing the subject altogether unfi 

have never been able to state explicitly 
ly what is to be understood by a Trinity o 

sons in one God. And this is one reason’ 

the Unitarian system is ofteueel ed in pre 
ence to the Athenasian erced. ‘The reasons Shick 
these writers assign for thus leaving the peas 
unfinished is, that it is a mystery and int ) 
of human comprehension. - Butt! 
move'the difficulty; for as far“as 
tends our knowledge’ must”exter 
eapnot believe any fact w the m tha 
fact remains unknown. Tt iat least the du duty of 
ail writers to state what the satjeck' of their be- 
lief is, and whiga this is done, there can be no fone 


with it; but’the matter of our belief must 
EAownt whereas in the case before 18:1 
that our writers have been ine 
img what are the facts which they wistto 

lish. If the judgement of Doetor Doddridge i 
be depended upon, wé may as well give up the’ 
doctrine ofthe Trinity, for it is only a non inali 
and not a real distinction which exists between 
the Divine persons: If there are not th 
soris in a true and philosophical sense in the 
nity of the Supreme Being, the Unitarian ; ys- 
tem is preferable to the Trinitarian, because moré 
consistent with itself. 


ot acheeomsbial nature,.con- 
e most evident. mar of 


Ar Stench my. own Opinions n may, dif. 
fer from the opinions of learned and eminent 
men. who have written before me, in support. of 

very important, article of Christian faith, I 
shall endeavour to be consistent with myself, and 
stat distin y. my own opinions, and. why they 

Her fi om. the popular doctrines. of the present 
And by so doing, trust that I shall be en- 

J, wa ay many of t io important, objec- 
tions which have been made to the doctrine of 
the Trinity, ‘esperially those which relate to the 
Unity of God. Agi though I shall in some mea- 
sure expose my self by dissenting from. popular 
opinion, yet I trust that those who hear me will 
treat me with. charity. 

pi commencing this subject, it will be proper, 
in the first place, that we havea clear conception 

of the terms made use of. . The use of words is 
of very considerable importance. in discussing 
subjects which are important in themselves. 
“Every writer who_uses particular ‘terms, ought 
either to abide by the interpretation of the most 

approved standards, stating the particular wri- 
ters of whom he isa follower; or if there isa dif- 
ference between his and their ideas, he ought at 
least to give a distinct definition of his own ideas, 
and abide. thereby. : 

In. considering the doctrine of the Trinity ig 
Unity, the words person, personality, and. es- 
sence frequently occur. I would here remark, 
that none but complex ideas are capable of defi- 
nitions, although they may sometimes be con- 
veyed or expressed to others by the use of differ= 
ent names for thesame. idea. Tho word eSSERCe,, 


ns 


- 86 


therefore, being a simple id 
sistence, Cannoteadmit of a 
it i@ perfectly understood by e 
is capable of ideas. 
‘Tne idea of mode or 
ble ofa definition as phe 1 
are, however, various kinds: 


son 1s acquainted, and which a 
by different names. They ren 
derived from the different» moc 
various essences or substances exi: “we 
know of no other ei ee ‘he nam va- 
rious genera and species of beings beside the 
mode of their subbistehce Sieve the chiardie 
teristie of every particular being ¢ : 
tence. Concerning the internal ¢ 
being or essence, we know nothi 
we can know concerning matt 
the sensible qualities which belong? 
other words, from their mode of bi 
ent modes of being receive differer 
the same manner that a figure with f 
ceives a different name from ones 
‘three. Thus the general idea of 
essence or real substance, pase ht pstrac 
ideas, are undefinable. But as these two sir 
ideas always coexist together in Wh same st 
ject, they form a complex idea, and thi 
idea is definable only by stating what pa 
mode is united with the idea of being 
For instance, we have perfect ideas of 
firure, and we cannot define them unless 
im one complex idea, and ‘then we | 
complex idea by stating “What p 
belongs to the substanee, Which m 


‘ THEOLOGY. (63 


q 
7 


osama nist iexre- But when autien- 
umeration of all the simple id s, becomes, tedi~ 


ous,or cannot be shown, the common and only 
method, to be pursued isto state what are the sim- 
_pler ideas of which the complex one is constitut- 


' The nam@jef every creature, therefore, arises 
‘fromthe mode under which its substance or es- 
sence exists, and every particular creature is de- 
finable only by shgwing that.particular mode 
which constitutes the name, and in union with 
an essence, forms a complex idea of this name. 
‘The simple ideas of modeare distinguishable on- 
dy from their different names, unless by sensation 
or reflection; but.are not capable of definition, 
unless the mode -becomes:a complex one, 

Personality is no more capable of being defined, 
than essence, and can be.understood only, or con- 
weyed to others, by using a different fame for 
the same idea. ; Consciousness or intelligence 
may be used assynonimous with the word per- 
sonality, and is one particular mode which is uni- 
ted with theideaofjbeing or essence. We all 
know that we -posséss',sensatien and reflection, 
yet to define whetjsensation, or reflection is, is 
ampossible. It is, however, as far as any, person 
understands, the-meaning of the word conscious- 
ness, that faculty by which we know that we are 
ourselves, that our thoughts and ideas are 
jour own and mot.another’s. Thus to know, is 
-that faculty. which ave call consciousness or per- 
‘sonality; but what: it iseto know and feel cannot 
‘be described, it can piel cidade 

These two simple ideas, personality, and es- 
‘sence or substance, being united, constitute a 
omplex idea. called ason and:this complex 

J ¥ 


PM ee 
1% * 


68 LECTURES ON Py 


_ 4dea is definable only by saying that it is compos: 
ed of the simple ideas already named. We have 
but one idea of substance or essence when ab- 
stractly considered; and though we speak of dif- 
ferent kinds of beings, yet our ideas of existence 
or simple substance are in no respect changed, 
the difference arises only frome different 
modes under which beings exist™in time and 

, Bpace. ‘ . 

"A person, therefore, is aggeicigers being, ca- 
pable of considering itself as itself and not ano- 
ther, constituted a complex idea of this particu- 
lar name and kind only from that particular mode 
ofexistence called personality, under which an 
essence exists; because as there is no diversity 
of our abstract idea of essence; whenever a be- 
ing becomes of a particular kind or species, it 
must arise from some other idea than that of es-_ 
sence or substance, and that idea is of a particular 
mode, and of which there is an infinite variety. 

If the particular species of any complex ideas — 
are derived .only from the particular -mode to — 
which the essence is united, then the name of © 
every complex idea is derived from the same © 
source; therefore we have a right to call every 
being a person which exists under that particular 
mode of existence called personality. 

It will be here perceived that my object has 
been to show that every complex idea derives its 
‘name from the particular mode which is united 
with its essence, and that the essence is no foun- 
dation for determining the name of the idea. We 
learn this from experience, for the same substance 

_ may become at different fimes the matter and 
substance of various machines, and receive’ dif- 
ferent names, while the essence is the same.- 


iv 
“ 


THEOLOGY: 69" 
Therefore if a being possess two different modes 
of existence at the same time, two different names 
may be given it with the greatest propriety, 
while the substance is the same. = 
But if a being can possess two diff rent modes 
of existence at the same time, and therefore be- 
ing two plex ideas, receives two different 
hames, W nay not two modes of existence of 
a similar kind, though different im number, exist 
jn the same essence at the same time, and receive ~ 
two similar nanresy.as they are two complex 
ideas of the same kind. aa® an illustration, a fa= 
ther has two sons. Paternity is arelation which 
one person holds towards/another, and that rela- - 
tion which a father holds to one son is not the - 
identity ofa similar relation which he holds to ~ 
another son, therefore as the relations held to 
two sons are in identity different relations, the 
same perso who holds them may with preprie- 
ty be ealled two fathers, although but one man 
or one person. - Consequently if personality de- 
termines the name of the complex idéa of per-. 
‘son, why cannot two personalities belonging to” ~ 
the same substance give us a right to call the two 
complex ideas two persons? For the same es- 
sence united with a different personality must 
of course be a different complex. idea from the 
union of the same essence with another persona- 
lity. But lest I should be misunderstood, it will 
be proper to inquire! Yere wherein identity of 
person consists? Undoubtedly in the identity 
of the simple idea of which the complex one of ~ 
person is composed. Wherefore the same per- 
sonality united with the same essence constitutes-__ 
the same person, and none but the same simple 
‘idea in union can constitute the identity of the 
: * 


(ep ee” vie 3 —-s f 
. . 


“ ‘LECTURES ON 
sume person, If prmrepe? a8 ‘erelaaiaae. 


sists in the identity of cons 
united with the same subs , wherein consists 
diversity of person? Perhaps you will answer, 
maaueiaiy in *y diversity of consciousness or. 
personality and a diversity ofessence with which 
pevsonality is united; thatis, to different 
chy at there should ifferent 
st a different 


oe An : 
ery true that a diversity 
. 


s 
"Eaicherodinpis nek 
ee ste An @ id would constitute mh cy 
ete aa id uch a diversity is n - 
solutely r or ifit was necessary that 
every simple ‘tue sh e changed in order that 
gomon eh complex che may be formed; thea a 


rson who \js to-day a intieen eaten ot become a. 
eggar ity becoming a @ifferent man; the. 
n a 


ass whi ov a clotk canmot become a dif- 
erent machine hereafter. on the contrary we. 
perceive that.to become a differentimachine does 


not require different materials, buta different, 
echanisth; and for the same reason that Ged! 
1ay become three persons, does not require three © | 
essences, but three personalities or consciousnes- : 
Ses 
There may be moré complex ided’ rmed out: 
of a number of simpler ones than the whole num-® 
ber of sitipler ones, consequently a diversity , 
all the'simpler ones cannot take place, hicseety 
two simpler ideas at least’aré required to consti- 
tute a complex one. That this may be better 
“understood, perhaps an illustration will be ne- 

_ cessaty. For example, here isa figure com- 
posed of four equilatural triangles, and each tri- 
angle may be considered at least a ee idea 
mae any two united in a complex one, and te. 


# 


‘ . IPHEOLOGY, ~*~ 


be the’ same complex idea requires thé union of 
the same simpler ones. os 


fae 


Here A B when viewed together constitute a “ys 
2 complex idea called a Rhombus ; consequently 
no other triangles but A and B can constitute» 
the’same Rhombus; therefore A and © when 
united form a different Rhombus from that which 
is constituted by the union of AandB; while 
A and D constitute a third Rhombus ‘different he 
from the others. Now though each Rhombus ~ i 
or complex idea is differentfrom the other, yet = 
Ais a part of each different one; therefore i 
though thejidéntity of each complex idea is con- 
stituted by the identity of the same simpler ones, 
yet a diversity of complex ideas does not neces-° 
sarily require a-diversity of all the simpler ones; 
‘Neither A nor B when copsidered abstractly, 
constitate the idea of a Rhombus, but a union of 
the two is required. If therefore A represent .~ 
the idea of being or essence and B, C, D, as three » 
personalities, consciousnesses or intelligences u- 


74° ‘Luctomeson? 
nied aswell to A, then the personality B ena 


ted with the essence A eonstitutes one~ al 
idea called person, C united with A constitute 
a second person, and. ‘D ugited with A oa 


tutes a third. Re r if kipbe t 
lex i 

s ‘at they eee the 

same I have Stren ay proved, be ae are not 

composed of the same simpler ones. 

If then’a bein possesses three c ivietiionaes 

» or similar modes of existence at the samie time, 
sonality by beiag united with the same 4 
e or fe ie ‘constitutes a differén 7 


x idea whic -we call person. ‘Tt may, th 
e, be seen that identity of person requires the- 
identity of all the simpler ideas which constitute - 


he complex one; yet diversity of person re- 
quires only a diversity ‘of enat while the 
one essence remains the same éfore, | 
‘doctrine ‘three personsin th ty of vie BO | 


or Divine essence; is perfectly consistent ae 
greeable to all the rules of sound re 
Though a complex idea inclade’simpl cones, 

v 


t we have fully proved that the annihilation’ of 
1 the simpler ones of’ which ‘it is composed ‘is 
eessary to the annihilation of savant “eomplex 

- Though a king is’ possessed “of ‘royalty 
and hiumanity, and these arethe o nly as which: 
ean constifitte the complex one of a king, yet — 
the = Te! =. king-is aninihflatetl bytes mere an- — 
nihilation of reyalty, while humanity still res 
mainsthe same. ‘Sif te eomplex idea ofking 
‘be destroyed by the destruction'o mo of its'sim- 

o 


pier ideas, then it was that idea whiely ren- 
‘dered his human nature a being of that ‘particu~ 
lar Kind called-a king, > e 


€ 
~ a 
, 


ae. * 


otal 


e 


“e | THEOWOEY. « 


\ Again, if a being possess personal powers ‘or 
eonscioustiess, by destroying his personality you. © 
also destroy the person though not the being; 
and ifthe annihilation of a person does not .im- 

»ply the annihilation ofa being, then the érea- 
ion or restoration of a person does not imply 
rs creation of another being, fortiny thing: 
whieh cannot diminish the substance by being. 
taken from it, cannot increase it by being united 
-or,added to it. Therefore, as the ideaof person 
’ — destroyed cannot necessarily 1 
e destruction of the essence or subst 
- more than royalty when takenaway dk 
manity ; so; by adding to a being one, tr 
three'persons, implies:"no plurality of esse 
any more than the addition of: royalty to hu- 
‘manity requires a‘second humanity; wherefore, 
the doctrine of three persons and one God or 
Divine essence is perfectly consistent and rea- 
sonable. For if God is really possessed of three 
‘als. or consciousnesses, he:must be con- 
sidered in every point of view three persons... 
Again,-supposing that a substance or being is 
presented unto us without life or animation and 
gonsequently not a person, all that isawanti , 
constitute it such, is personality: By attribu-. 
ting this, the being who before was not, now he- 
comes a’person, but not another substance; it is 
the same identical being now which, though now 
a person, it was before the addition of personali- 
ty. Iftherefore, all-that was-onriginally want- 
ing to constitute this being a person was the ad- 
dition of intelectual attributes: or personality, 
then all thatis wanting to eonstitute the same Be- 
ine another person is the addition of another per- 


a and-so-of a third, -. 


0 


. 


» 


We> Ea a 
“ 
* 


2 ® 


er a 


ie ae oo 
MM sscrinas on ia” 


: Although subsistencesisa partiof the idea wl 
‘ person, yet 1 is no part of personality any 
than it is of philosophy. ° A philosopher i 
ing under two modes of existence, personality _ 
and philosophic Laoricdgiietibieosbeanee a or 
essence is no-part of either although united with 
both. Consequently it will be perceived that ~ 
although*the word person com) the idea | 
of substance as much as the word philosopher 
comprehends the idea of personality, yet it dey 
not the essence which constifutes the eae of 
complex idea called person, any * 
which is called a philosopher; suas can Ait 
substance constitutes no part of personality, any 
additional substance or escence is not necessa- 
ry.for the addition-of another person, And as 
it is the mode only which determines the name 
ofevery complex idea, so where there is one or 
more personalities in union with the same es+ 
sence there must be one. or more complex ideas 
ealled persons, and yet without any diversity of 
essence, and therefore, in a way peripahy con- 
sistent with the unity of God. . : 
In saying, therefore, that there are three per- 
sons in one God, I mean oaly, that in the gener- 
al idea of the Sipr eme Being, there is a union of 
three complex ideas called persons; that is, God. 
possesses three sets of personal attributes, or 
three consciousnesses and is therefore a thrice 
personal being. . And as the phrase peronal ie 
2ne& is synonomous with the word person, th 
God in being a thrice personal being is three per- 
sons. Plurality f persons, therefore, is consti- 
tated only by a plurality of personalities or sets 
of intellectual attributes, and although personali- 
ty is not the idea of person, yet it is that which 


- .- 


dial 


ed toanother idea, which oP 

artes by this union the idea 

same way that royalty though net 

2 of pking, i is that which when added to- 
ns hy that Bor. 1 a =o 


._" % 
Perhaps it may be argued‘ by hat if pla=- 
ee : plurality of aaa 
_ties pena ought to say that there are 
ities and ‘one God, and not three 
s. What has already been said, is 2 
he answer to this objection; for though 
sonality of itself is not 2 person eny more than 
mechanism is a machine, er philosophy a philos- 
epher, yet it constitutes a person by ‘ts union ae - 
has mechanism constitutes a machine whe 
united with a substance. Each complex’ ideabeing: 
a different one from the other on account of its 
different personality must be ealied a different 
oan which is certainly very eorrect, forevc- 
complex idea ought to be expressed by a term 
that tough tcomprehead all the simpler ones of 
whieh it is composed. I presume it will not be 
asked whether the annihilation of the Divine 
personality or consciousness would_imply or 
cause the annihilation of his essence or being, for 
ways ean be supposed unless. personality i isal- 
w ential to being, whereas experience 
teac that there are millions of beings. in» 
the universe which exist without personality. 
Wherefore personality and essence being differ- 
ent ideas, the increase of the one cannot neces- 
sarily imply the increase of the other, although. 
it implies the increase of eomplexideas. There- 
fore the unity of the -Divine essence continues 
ever the same, though there be a diversity of per- - 


gonalilies or consciousnesses, and ther air’ 

versity of eomplex ideas called persons, fr 

‘anion of each personality with the same essen 
vhich I : 


@pavoured to establish as cot 
and the word of God is this: ‘Phat 
one true and éyerliving God of o: 
substance or essence; that this one ¢ 
*ed to one consciousness or set of personal attri-’ 
butes is God the Father, and stands related to us 
as a father or Creator. The same €sSen¢e in e-™ 
nion with a second consciousness or personality 
3s God the €on, and stands'related to us as a Re- 
deemer. ‘fhe same essence united with a third 
personality is God-the Holy Ghost, and is rela- 
ted to us as a Sanctifierand Divine assistant. So 
that these three persons are different in number. 
and stand-related to man in different ways, al- 
though perfectly consistent with the general na- 
ture of the Supreme Being. Not that these re- 
lations as some have supposed are the foundation» 
of the different persons of the Godie are- 
the effects of the different designs of each Divine. | 
person, though the designs of each person are in 
perfect harmony with those of the others, and 
consequently with their several relations also. | 
The doctrine of three consciousnesses i en 3 
God may be thoughta strange doctrine ; tishow- j 
over the only doctrine which can render that of: — 
three persons in one God consistent with reason: ~ 
and truth; for no other definition of the werd’ — 
person than that which T have given ean be con- ; 
sistent with the Divine Unity; and as thisisthe. — 
definition whichis given by Locke, and many U- _ 
nitarian writers also, I have.thought it the ot : 


Which could be used in an inquiry of this - 


- 


' > 


‘ 
>. 


- THEOLOGY, at 


: ella tends. to counteract their own objec- 

tions to the Trinitarian system, . Furthermore, 
ee sersons must indisputably convey the idea 

e consciousnesses, let the definition . be 
‘eae may, if we have any correct meaning f for 
the word. 

That, consciousnesses should dwell toge- 
ther in the same being is in no respect contra- 
dictory to any of the. “Divine attributes, neither 

» to reason nor revealed truth. For as each per- 
son is pure and holy, so their actions and designs 
must accord with each other in every respect; 
and not only so, but the designs of one are ac- 
eessary to the designs of the other in their fihal 
accomplishment. Neither is such a doctrine con- 
trary.to the word of God himself; and though 
there are three consciousnesses united with the 
same essence, yet this Divine essence is only 
one essence and consequently but one God. For 
though we say that each” person is one God, we 
do not say that each person isa distinct: God or 
a Triune,God, but the same undevisible essence. 
And therefore all those passages which have 
been quoted by -Unitarian.and other writers to 
show’ the, Unity of God in opposition to a Trini- 
ty of persons, can have no effect in showing that 

pinions are erroneous; for we believe in 
te ait of God as forcibly as our opponents. 

the word person has been defined as an in- 
telligent being who is capable of acting ‘and 
thinking for itself; Dr. Worcester as an objec- 
tion to the doctrine of the Trinity says, “As 
you, Sir, profess to believe that the Father and 
the Son are two persons and but one intelligent 
being, I would ask, whether the Father is nat 
* One intelligent boing? And is not the. Son also 


Wes ‘LECTURES ‘ON 


an intelligent being? Was he not an in 
being who came into the world to die’ om 
“sins? And. was he who car e ‘end he who sent 


Bit follow, ee must be rol - 
beings, w I readily admit in se 
though. the ther and the Son be diflere 
Uigent beings, they may be stillone and the same 
being. Fo. explain myself, however, I bring the * 
following illustration: A kingis a royal person; 
supposing then that he is dotidtinad! and looses 
a royalty, is he the same royal person after as 
ore his dethronement? Certainly not, Al- 
though he is the same person, he is not the same 
voyal person, ‘The question, however, is ‘an un- 
fair one, considered in any point of view ; 
‘soever, because ‘it is intended to cause equivoca- 
tion; for the word samemay Qe applied to both 
being and intelligent. If the writer means - to 
ask, whether he who came and he who ‘sent are 
the same intelligence ? we answer as before, no: 
‘but if he asks, whether hewho came and he- who 
sentare the same being or existence? we -an- 
swer yes. But as the question now stands, the 
intention of the author is not so well Liew: 
‘Still it may be asked, how ean ‘that bei o 
sent, and that who came, beone and wnewame be 
ing? ‘This is readily explained, if we consider 
the words come and sent in ‘their proper light. 
God is‘ Omnipresent, therefore‘he cannot come 
or be sent, in the commion aceeptation of the 
words; butrin saying that God‘the‘Father ‘sen’ 
his Son, we are to understand that he caused 
aesigned his manifestation, that is, a a manifesta- 
ion of the.second personality or intellectual eon: 


- eg 
ixthededl: ws 
$ ies Deity: 3 and that this ‘second per- 


* 
7 


Deity in being sent, in harm« 
» design of the first person, voluntari 5 
20 d to be manifested: tothe world. ‘There- 
e person ‘who was manifested and he who 
aiigeis yr caused his mahifestation were the 
‘same bei 1g, al though different persons. 
| Dr. Worcester seems to lay great stress upon 
fhe Phrasesyindelligent person and intelligent 
deing, considering them as ar hg aps ask- 
with great appearance of defiance, wherein 
Po tog age ea Now the difference is 
this, one expression is proper and the other im- 
proper. The expression intelligent being is ve- 
ry proper, and synonymous with the word per- 
son; but to say that it is synonymous with intel- 


ligent person, is perfect nonsense. Theyexpres- 
rip ya person, when used in determine 
ing the first principles of our nature, is tautolo- 
hy baits oat as to say, a philosophic philosopher, 
Faasiasl priest, or a medical physician, for the 
word 'persom alone signifies an intelligent being; 
‘and consequently to say an intelligent person, is 
the same as to say, a personal person; because it 
is intelligence which originally constitutes a per- 
sonal being. ‘To besure, when we use the ex- 
pression intelligent geen ina different sense, 
implying that a persons possessed of fine talents, 
and las properly improved them, the language Is 
very correct. But when it is used to signify. the 
nature of our being, it is altogether improper. 
The chief points which I have here endeavor- 
‘ed to establish may be thus briefly condensed: 
The word person, being a complex idea, com- 
prehends ‘the two simpler ones of personality and 
‘essence. A. diversity ow ideas may be 


r 


‘ %,, lp i, 
tee. . 
80 ries 4 
formed without a ) simpler 
ones, or the same sim 
constituting different 0 cor 
identity of a pte ge 
the identity of all the sir 
a diversity of persons do¢ 
ply or require a eg | 
which it is composed, part 
stance or essence. ‘The 
may remain anchangeal in 
three persons in the Godheac 
ing three persons must nee 
consciousnesses ‘unttel ie 
“senee, and consequently 
sets of those attributes den 
tence, Omniscence, Omni 
tence, Eternity, Immutabil 
Goodness and Mercy. Th 
applicable only to the Divine 
and therefore it cannot be suf 
them belong to the same God, 
tributes which are necessarily unit r 
sonality are plural. Each person'th e pos- 
sesses a distinct consciousness and will, , but is 
nevertheless the same substance, the same eter- 
nal Jehovah. And this I take tobe the true and 
only method in which the doctrine of the Trini- 
ty in Unity can be explained consistently with — 
reason or the word of God. 
But lest it should be thought that this system 
is similar to that of Sabellius, I would here re- 
mark in the first place, that the three persons of 
the Godhead, as here considered, do not co 
in three consciousnesses or personalities. Son 
have supposed that personality or conscio 
and person were synonymous terms, but this I 


eonsciousnesses- 
ed in constituting, the Divine 
ty of persons, and not that cone . 
person, or that three con- 
persons,any more than that . 
a machine, or royalty a king; and 
y of this doctrine with the Unity 

1 have sufficiently illustrated. 


at od 
-.% 
7 = 
; 5 
node : ¥ 
‘ % a ohe= - i 
: > fes sites é - » - 
y 
Yd 
a 
is? 


eer ei Dnarehage 
Sdidee liie 


OG os 3 
* 


- Tv will be recollected 
F endeavoured to show t' 
2d in the, first princi 
i those ited whieh as 
stitution ofan intelli 
which I Lave other 
general name of coyscio 
ality, in union with @ Sp 
by the complex*te¥m of p 
person consists in the ident 
wnion with. the same essence. 
different personality, whether 
same or a different essence | 
erent person. For pene: 
ism existing in a certain substa 
chine of a particular kind, and the ider 
machine consists in the identity of 1 ey 

union with the same substance; — 
mechanism being given to 
constitutes a different mai 
sence is the same. 

A different personality, the 
that is necessary to the constitution o 
person, I am led to infer that under th 
ble aspect of our Lord and Saviour there 


THEOLOGY. y 83 


two persons, Because there” were two personali- 
ties, Pe and human; and which ‘it will be, 
by pote bject to prove in the courseof this lec- 

I sincerely regret that from a love 

am compelled thus to pursue a different 

osite course from that which has been 
so tt sally observed by the Orthodox gener- 
; Gur b writers on this subject, both Trinita- 
rian and Unitarian, have generally endeavoured 
to support the idea that in our Saviour and Me- 
diator there was but‘one single and individual 
ter “The Athenasian doctrine is, that in or- 
our Saviour to become a‘complete and 

t iadince between an infinite God and 

ioe nore two natures, infinite and fi- 
pt were absolutely necessary.. To come into 
this world and correspond with humanity, a hu- 
-man nature must be given, and to correspond 
gd God, a Divine nature was also indispensable. 
‘Relative to this doctrine, in which I cheerful- 
lyreoneur, the Rev. John Brown says that these 
natures were distinct in every point of view, and 
wholly uncompounded; that our Saviour pos- 


sessed two “infinitely different Natures. Rom. — 


4-34; viii—3; ix—5. Pet. ili—18. Heb. ix— 
14.2 John i—14. 1 Tim. iii—16. Phil. 2—6, 7. 
Different understanding es and wills; knowing 
all things, as in John 1i—25; xxi—17; and yet 
not knowing the time of the last judgment, as in 
Mark xxii—32; having one will with the Fa- 
ther. John ix— x—30; xiv—9, 10. i John 
v—7, and yet having a will different from the Fa- 
ther’s. Luke xxii—42. Almighty God, yet ern- 
- cified through weakness. Gen. xvii—l. Isaiah 
ix~-6. 2 Cor. iii 34.” Brown's Divinity. 


oy LECTURES @N- 


The judicious: een wor 


d@oetrine; for he says, that the G ht nd m 
hood, as to their intellect ati 
well as every other, are p 
the one nature does not ies 
other; that there is “no 
tion thereof out of: ances 
such mutual infusion as 
natural operations or prof 
mon unto both substances; bi : 
tural to the Deity the samen ; 
uncommuniecated to his sa ha 
ever i8 natural to man; the ity is 
thereof.’ See Hooker’s v 
Mr. Brown alsoad 
‘sent our Saviour as having a true 
Isa. liii—10, Psalm xxii—2i. Matth 
Sohn xii—27; with a finite ved i 
standing, Luke ii—52.. Mar 
distinct -from,.and subordin: 
Matth. xxvi—39, and a true hu 
KKVI—26.” Brown’s- Divi ie. PhS 
Asa further confirmation -of this di 
in the two natures of our Saviour, I wi 
those passages from the irispired ig 
give unto him the names, titles, and «Pie ind .4 
whieh can belong to none but-the supreme God; : 
as also those which can belong te none but an in- 
feriour and ereated being, 
And firstly, our Saviour i 
knowledges the coequality 
Father, saying, “I am 
Alpha and Omega, the beginning: and Daediiug. 
saith the Lord, whieh is; and whieh was, ae 
which is to come, the Almighty.?? Rev. i 


ii—8; vi—13, 20; xxi—6; xxii—6. “Theli 


-his own words ag- 
his nature with the 
5 4 am;”? er “I am 


a as 
‘PHEOLOGY. - 83 


eee tee JI Jobmiii—2o. Rev.i— 
18. ? «The g et and the mighty God” ‘a Ti i 

ce only = Seep Jude 25. “Ge 
° ts > Rom. ix—5. : 


To, of Kings. ” Rey. xvii- 
#1 “he a of “hosts, and fae 


sobadiics fei 


ny 
ic at once $ is 
D1 = one timp; be ving been in co} 
swith a the pee taser ag 
= te Paes ni—3 “All things were 
pe ae without. him was mot! any 
ing that was made. Alsoin Heb i—2 
i is also styled the governor and pre- 
server of all things, as in Col. i—17, 18. Heb. i 
-3. And again, the same worship is ascribed 
unto him as unto God the Father, and that even 
by the command of the Father, saying, “let all 
the angels of God worship him.”’? And indeed 
we are positively informed that Jesus Christ him- 


self thought it no tomake himself equal 
with God, or be so considered by his sau Se 
f 


Other passages might be selected; but as our Sa- 
viour’s Divinity is notso much the object of the 
ase discourse, I defer any further remarks 

atila future Lecture; as a suflitiency bas alre’- 


86 LECTURES ON 7 


dy been said forthe conviction of any unpreju- 
diced mind. pat 

I now go to show from the same writers Ui 
certainty of our Saviour’s inferiority to God the — 
Father. And firstly, from his ow 


Father is greater than I.” xiv Ale 
so his subjection to the pe d dominion of — 
God, as is expressed, Joh —38, “I came 
down from heaven Maas dc a ne own will, but 
the will of him that sent m@z? Also in 1 Cor. _ 
iii-23, “Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”? — 


Our Saviour is also called the servant, -of God, as 
in Matth. xii-18. Acts iii-26; iv—27, 30. He 
is also said te have been sent by God inte the 
world as by a superiour. “As my Father ib | 
seat me, so send! you,” John See 

Weare also informed that, like unto the: 

and prophets of that and former ages, 

spired by the Holy Ghost, rte ot la coe a 
would be unnecessary. This we learn eae 
ny passages, as in Luke iv-18, “The Spinit 

the Lord is upon me.”? He is also represen 

as having been chosen of God, as wBenold | 
servant whom J have chosen. » Matth. xii—18. 
God is called cur Saviour’s God and Father. 
John xx-—17. Rom. xv-6 Eph. i-3. 1 Pet.i-s. 
Col.i—s. He also possessed all the frailties and 
imperfections of man, except sin; and like mor- 
tal man, died and was buried. 

These different accounts of our Saviour’s co- 
equality and inferiority with God the Father; 
can in no manner be aecounted for, aecording to 
the Unitarian system, beeause perfectly contrary 
facts are here asserted, which, if there is but one 
nature in our Saviour; as they would wish to 
have us believe, are altogether irreconcilable. 1f 


2 compelled cnowledg 
a he Christ” ace araly ant 
ires, as is ma 

en, OF ‘that the seri 


ah al ae 


ot my object. It is ite so much 
in this lecture to counteract the the- 
r ans, @ as to oppose 2a » 
eur own church, a 
e personal t unity of the sé ty 
hat is, our brethren who cal! them- 
x endeavour to maintain, that al- 


tures ei 8 eontra- 


14 


this is, a be- 


Jesus Christ, yet this union can con- 
@ person, as is expressed in the se- 
eofourchuareh. “So. that two whole 
ject natures, thatis, ihe Godhead and 

were joined together in one Berton 
never fo be divided.’ 

Now, i in the first place, if this article ‘ba true, 
then i in order that the distinction between the 
Divine and humannatures may hold good accor- 
ding to the scriptures, the same person must be 


both wise and ignorant, superiour and inferiour, . 


strong and.weak, perfect and imperfect, capable 
of pain, agony and death, : and altogether incapa- 
ble; and this, we know, nn ok possibly be true 


ef one and the same person; and therefore, those 


intained by our Rever- 


eimselves, and, 


ror. which : 


ptures fuily confirm a diversity of ~ 


7 


88 LECTURES ‘ON 


who hold tobuitone person in our Saviour, m 
give up either his manhood or his Divinity, or 
else admit an evident contradiction and incon- 


— 


sistency. ‘Toavoid this otherwise unavoidable — 


inconsistency, and to keep truth on my side, I 


shall wy a to show that our Saviour and © 


Mediator not only possessed two different and 
distinct natures, but persons; the one -coequal 
with the Father, the ether a created and eonsb- 


quently inferior: being. al 


To prove this, all that 1s necessary on my p: 
has indeed been admitted by Trinitarians gener- 
ally, in admitting a distinction of natures. For 
itis admitted that in our Saviour were compre- 
hended two perfect natures or sets of intellectu-. 
al attributes,is well as spiritual essences. Now. 
ifour Saviour™possessed two different conscious- 
nesses, as has been by them admitted, and which 
indeed they cannot deny without making the 
Supreme God capable in his own consciousness. 
and person of agony, misery and death; and if 
also there are two distinct spiritual heings or es- 
sences, a Divine Spirit, and created. human soul, 
to which his consciousness or personality was: 
united, which is also admitted by Brown, Hook-. 
er, Whitby, Burnet, and all our brethren gener-* 
ally, then nothing can possibly be wanting to the 


constitution of two perfect and distinct persons.. 


That our Saviour was perfect God as well as 
perfect man, has always been admitted by the 
Orthodox generally, that he possessed asdistinct, 
set of intellectual attributes distinct from those 
of his Deity; and how can we admit of adistinct 
set of intellectual powers,a distin¢t conscious- 
ness belonging to a distinet human soul, without 
admitting a distinct human person, when per« 


nsciousness, I would be 
what it does consist. And fu: 
writers who deny a distinct person 

g¢ to our Saviour’s human nature, 
have quoted as supporting the exis- 


ta: p admitted that personality does 
consist in those qualifications. “For,’’ says Mr. 
Saviour’s _ umanity did not stand 
in need of a distinct p rs ty when Haas, 
ae superiour intelligence of God.” 2 
Ww after having acknowledged that 
distinct ‘natures were united to 
and distinct spirits, God and man; 
tes of the one were never the at- 
= Suh and that the identity of the 
dt different from the identi- 
ty of the marhopd apd they will not say that these 
separate and idual beings can constitute two 
And why they will not admit this, is 
beyond my conception; for where nothing is 
wanting to such a diversity of persons, there can 
be no reason for denying the fact, but prejudice 
and education. 

That this distinction of natures was a personal 
distinction, cannot be denied, if we have any i- 
deas of a personal nature. They spoke as differ- 
ent persons, each using the pronouns I and me} 
and therefore, unless they were different persons, 
they were guilty of inconsistencies, especially 
in their declarations of knowledge and ignorance. 
Our brethren tell us that when our Saviour pro- 
fessed ignorance, it was that of his human na- 
ture, and we will acknowledge this, because his 


_consciousnesses, wills, and under-. 


eras 
“= 


iui, 


90 LECTURES ON 


human nature was a distinct personality. Ana 
we ask, What nature but that of personality og 
5 t la e\ 


consciousness can in proper language be‘said ta — 


be wise or ignorant? riety would 
there be in saying our bodi 
wise? Our Saviouf,asman, is acknowledged by 
eur opponents to have a distihet understanding, 
and therefore, to possess some knowledge. And 
what but a.personal nature is capable of aration- 
al understanding and human knowledge. © 


hes 


These inconsistencies cannot be reconciled — 


without ascribing to our complex Mediator two 


distinct natures and persons, the one created, the | 


" other uncreated, the one perfect, the other im- 

perfect, the one superior, the lier Our 
. Saviour as the second person of the Trinity is e7 
qual to the Father in every wipes per- 
haps in his Mediatorial character, ch ‘cannot 


-lessen the dignity of his nature, though the office © 


itself may be an humble one; butas man, he was 
inferior, because created in time, and finite in his 
powers. And it will be found that all those passa- 


ges which imply an inferiority in our Saviour » 


_are applicable either to his human nature or his 


€ ignorant o¥ — 


office as a Mediator. To be a Mediator, towey=, 


er,'as before hinted, does not imply inferiority” 
in nature. When two or more persons are e- 
qually interested in the attainment of some im- 
portant end, it in no manner implies inferiority, 
because one becomes subservient to the will and 
designs of the others. It is his own voluntary act 
whenever he thus offers his services, and not in 
the character ofa menial. And, for the same rea- 
son, Jesus Christ, the second person in the Trini- 
ty, in becoming subservient to thewill of the 


Father, is perfecting his own ends as welk 2s * 


_“Lheref 
ty ine 


either. 
inferiori 


d 's, as 1 have before said, I 
‘leave the common received o-. 
ans, and ascribe unto our Sa- 
“natures but two persons; first- ye 
doctrine of the'Trinity cannot be 
thout it, PO 4 4 ag ‘the. 
ose passages which I have quoted 
ifferent a ate in Savi _ 
- and ignorant, strong and weak, per- 


“fect and rfect, either teach it, or are to be 
1o ed: inconsistent in themselves. And 
w those who profess aunity of persons in our 
Saviour attempt to prove it consistently with 
the doctrine of the Trinity or the word of God, 
‘Tknow not. Atleast, Lhave never seen any . . 
thing on this‘point which was in any manner sat- 
isfactory. Ifiam called a Nestorian, it matters 
not, provided that truth is on my side. ») 

Our “sig all tell us that Jesus CHFlst who 
came into the world to save sinners, was 1n eve- 
xy respect, sin only exeeied Me unto other 


ect Gac 
od, and 
Tee as eet 
A being totally iva i 
personality and e 

-still thesame person. 

‘wvith whom he was, 
explain, bennett in nt 
agin of plain se 
_ The consciousne: 
gtha, suffered upon ‘the 

_ be the consciousness 
Trinity, or God the 
same consciousness, 
a sufferer, and such. 
ture. And if it wasas 
-it must haye been a 
_consciousness in uniongwi 
“ual part, constitutes a dis sti 
explained ina former lecture. 
of the Divine persons could»s 
_ ture, unless the human and Divine nate 
or have one consciousness, is foolist 
if they possess but one sonata 


monly believed, it must begthe ec 
of God, whieh I trust. will not be 


who Lelicve 1 in the infinite | pe 
mighty. s/t wh oh 


THEOLOGY.) . 


n - i inp. arperidaulltg, 
y, then fonda teehe ped were 
; n of- 


who cimtiotinsatiee- 3 

Ss ain his promised bless- 

: e rari t of pain, cannot be con-*. 
a being of the same perfection as he who - 

be Omnip potent” 7 without-misary? wherefore 
annot bee ome mise able in any ight what- 


eV coming imperfect.also. Infin-~ 
ite” dy eyil in the subject who 
possess s it, and as misery is the rootand foun-~ 
evi hse ag 28 Ossessits « ~ oi 
irthermore let meask, what was want- 
state our Saviour homanity a per-— 
person from his Divi asayh 
2 omg “Athenasian b a 
& fend intelligent: vrs er nae . 
towel Seen sdistinet fi = Fa ere essence, 
vet all those several attributes whichnecessarily ” 


4 rahe rsonal being ; a distinct mind, per= 
iapeoen and wil nd will 3 and ifso, why was « 
t person? - eg 


rther considering this subj ak, permit me’ 
to ie her enor his fuk Gallatians” 
iv—4: “But when’ the fullness of time was” 
¢ome, God sent forth his son. made of a gee 
made under the law.” Theunavoidableconclu- _ 
sion to be drawn from this, is, that some person’ ir 
‘e#tled a Son was’ made under the law. © The map’ 


mee 


94 LECTURES ON i 


Jesus Christ. was the subject. 
Permit me to ask then;:wh 
a3 all our Peinitares yret 
Saviour to have beer 
without the creation p 
ery perfect manvis a person 
personal being was cneatec m 
must bea distinct personal be ; 
was uncreated, . peptic ne au 
human attributes are word; 
under which are implie 
are personal and which ] 
ed, as power, eae 
bike. A power, knowledge 
iierefore, were created a » 
. Was this the power, kna 
ness of God or man v 
Not of God, for his attrib ferna 
were consequenthy the at rene ar 
man soul, therefore, 4 all the tri 
longing unto it must have be 
‘ifa perfect man was made, pe 
God or the second person | - 
sessed of a distinct rt and ¢ he rin onal 
tributes belonging thereunto, — was wanti 
or could be wanting to constitute a d. 
son? Personality consists either came e 
or the attributes of that pg 
Tf it consists in an Bh ao 
tinct person because a pT pres ea ace 5, 
sists in the attributes thereof, asI hz 
voured to show, then there, was a» di 
son, because a distinct set of attributes | 
consists in both the essence and attr utes i 
nion, there is stilla distinet person, | yecause be 
were united distinctly from theunion.o i 


‘ea =— it 


y and essence. ‘Let Pp 


ju Sete sire prenontal tia OR: 
, and was ‘therefore — ed: 
sin every sense of the wor 
sit may be said # it tw 
rr s may 
Sater 


is all that is req j 
Pp rsoayand therefore, if i 


rere are two | ‘conscidusnesses a 


itil must I think acknowledge, then’ 
; thet daat-also: be two'different persons: 


Agaisi, when our Saviour was apnea his ie 


second coming, he says,, “But‘of that ‘day and 
that hour kKnoweth 0 man, no, not the angels 
which arein hea jeither the Son; but the Fae 
ther” Now if the humanity’ and Divinity of 
‘our areonstituted but one’person, one con- 
sciousness, Pe that: ignorance which was as~ 
cribed tate the Son was as truly applicable un- 
to his Divinity'as his» humanity; because “both 
constituted’ but one and the same person, whe 

as God the Son is repeatedly spoken’ sof in't 

*striptures a8 being Omniscient. Asa’ distinct 


96) LECTURES ON 
person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ was ee 


Jedged by St; Peter and others:as: knowing all » 


things—*Lord thou knowestall things.” It was. 
the humanity only, therefore, who was ignorant, 
as a distinet person from the Divinity which was. 
in him and to which he was united. » 


in another, “I and my Father are one.””?, In the 
first instance he was evidently speakingjas aman. 
‘only, and in the second, asa persen who was Di- 
vine, and therefore equal with the Father.. And 
though the same organs of speech were used 

both by the Divine and: human natures, yet they 

were evidently speaking as different and distinct, 
persons. For the Divinity, with to his 
eternal nature, could. not. say,-“My Father is: 
greater than I,’’ neither could the humanity say, 
“I and my Father-are one.””, And in respect to 

his knowledge, the Divinity could not-say, I 

know’ not the day nor the hour, neitherjeould 

the humanity be accounted as omniscent. And: 
yet, ifthe popylar doctrine be true, thesame: 
person is wise and ignorant, powerful and weak, 

anortal and immortal, Divine and human. 

All Trinitarian writers have acknowledged: 
that the assertions ofiand concerning our Savi~- 
our are frequently applicable only to one of his 
natures; and this -distinetion is certainly very 
correct;. but if both of those natures constitute 
only one person, then this distinction can no lon~ 
ger hold good. For whatsoever that one-person: - 
says of himself must be applicableuntohis whole 
self, which comprehends both his humanity and 
Divinity: For neither the humanity. nor Divi~ 
nity could use the personal prenouns)Zandeme- 


. 


| 
: 


7 


‘ Is ignorant of some ety i as our Saviour did, is © 
a contradiction. » fact is, every conscious. - 
being-who is po d of ideas distinct from the. 
ideas of another conscious being, must bea dis- - 


THEOLOGY. ge 


1ce to Ne hate ME 

idual nature was.an individual an 

nm. To say that our Saviour, w! 

of his ignorance, was speaking only 

ignorance of his humanity, when there was 

ne by between them, is-absurd. Sup-- 
r example, that F-should be called. as a 


‘toa certain fact, and shouié pro- 


ignorance to the whole subject; and then 
ES it should be. auld: that 


eee reese preteen was only that 


of my material part; in my spiritual nature I 
possessed | a perfect knowledge of all that had 


of me.- Such language would be ~ 


considered as altogether absurd, unless my mate 


rial-part was'a distinet person, -and as such an- - 


swered for itself. And such isthe fact;as rela, 
tive to the person of our Saviour; if he was only 


one person, then:his humanity was only a part 
of the same, and therefore the language:of our 
Saviour as a person, respecting his ignorance, . 


was altogether absurd; because either a Divine 
or human person being but one-and the same 


person he is said: to know all things, and for that. 


person who knoweth all things, to say that he 


tinet person, and as such only can be permitted 
to.use the personal pronouns, I, me, &e. Bi 
Ifin our Saviour there is but one person, then’ 
the inferiority which in the-scriptures is repeat- 
edly ascribed unto Jesus’ Christ, must have been 
a- personal inferiority, consisting in want of - 
kaowledge and power, and must -be applicable. - 


98 LECTURDS ON 


unto the second person eh Trinity 

ing but one person of © Sav 

the Son; and if this inferior ty ap 

he cannot be the true‘God 

ty of our Saviour still renyains withou 
Ifthe man Jesus Chrietoth! God | or 

son of God, why needed he the i 

the Holy Ghost, why called heh 

to the Father, why in ‘his agonies 


was with him? For to say t 
ourselves is absurd. Andalsoin his e: 
tion he might as well have said, myself, 1 
why hast thou forsaken me? as to say, my 
my God; unless it be urged that one one pers 
the Trinity was uttering an. exclamatio 
another which I think will note serie, a 
is altogether impossible that one” pers: 
Godhead should forsake and leavethe othe 
misery and -despair; because no person of the 
Godhead is capable of misery and‘despair. ° 

- But if our Saviour was truly tworpersons, all 
these objections of inferiority’ enh once at’ an 
end; for the inferiority ‘of Skat cae a 
no argument against the coequality of the Divine 
or séeoud person of the Prinity, the human ‘per- 
son being no part of the Godhead though united 
to him who was. This expression of our Savi- 
our in his agonies was evidently an address or 
supplication of one person to another. “The 
person who uttered these words was ‘undoubt- 
edly the person who suffered, and ‘whom fora 
few moments God had forsaken,” an meter 
the*address was made to God the Father 
the Son, it matters not, for the persom to 


“RHEOLOGY. - 99: 


ore 85 Col and the person who cried was 
God, unless God is a sufferer. ‘Ttis admit. 
d howey er by all, that humanity alone wast ie 


1a Therefore, the person who aires as 
re the exclamation, was different from ‘ 
the Father or God the Son, and consequently, . 
bags.) ast have been two persons in our Saviour. © 
e evident. intention. of the passage is this. 

Tt e human_ person or man Jesus Christ, in all ~ 
his trials and troubles i in this world, had always - 
received the assistance- -of God the ‘Son who was 
unite d with ee manifested under the same 


é peer body. But in his last sufferings, in or- | 


* 


der to accomplish his whole work, Godthe Son 
withheld. his assistance from the homes person, 
and the benap person cried to his Divinty “Mwy 
*God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?? 
Why dost thou not afford the same assistance’ 
whieh thou hast heretofore done, ; and deliver me 
from this cruel: death ? > And this interpretation - 
is certainly 1 mere reasonable than to say that this ° 
expression was uttered by the Divinity, for it is 
uttered in that style which is truly consistent. 
with human frailty and weakness. ; 
The Athenasian writers, however, willstill say, 
wedo not profess thatit was uttered by the Divini- 
ty, but by the human nature only. But how this 
can be admitted. without acknowledging that this _ 
human nature was a distinct person from the Di- 
vinity, L know not... For if, as Mr. Locke says, 
“g person is a thinking, intelligent being, that ~ 
has reason and reflection, and can consider i self 
as itself, the same thinking thing in "different 3 
times Hon places”’, then, why was not the faery, 


» ity of our Saviour a distinct person? For it ° 


rig 3 


100° LECTURES ON 


was possessed of all that was required to consti--\) 
tute it such. without the loss of a single attri-~ 
bute ; it spoke of itself as itself without any re~ 
ference to the Divinity with y it was con-— 
nected, of its inferiority in kr and pow- 
er, making use of the ibe py: Fead me like 
all other persons. 
Bishop Burnet attempts: oo salde-the ditedtey- 
arising from the doctrine of two natures in one 
rson, by comparing our Saviour’t> man. We- 
now, say's he, that in man there are two differ- 
ent and distinct natures united, matter and spirit, 
and which constitute but one man, and although 
this is aninexplicable mystery, it is neyertheless 
true.. Why then shall we not admit the possi- 


bility of two natures in our Saviour, Divine and” 
human, united in one person, although: a myste-~ 


Pry? 
To this it may be replied, that the comparison: 
3s not a good one, and therefore is no argument 


in favour of the position. Although in man there » 


are two natures, material and spiritual, yet the 
material is not the personal part, neither consti- © 
tutes any part of the human person, for if such 
were the fact we are indeed never the same per-* 
son; our skin, our flesh, and even our bones are 
continually dissolving and changing, and in the * 
course ofa few years not a particle or vestige of | 
the same body remains. In man, therefore, there | 
is but one personal nature, one spirit or created 
soul, which is capable of ideas and t 
whereas in our Saviour two personal ee 
must be acknowledged, the Divine and ‘hut 


The comparison, therefore, is not a correct | ea ae 


betause in man no one allows the union of two 
personal natures. ae te 


_ THEOLOGY. 191 


From these remarks it will be perceiver, that 
s Christ, who came ito the world to’ save 
ers, was really two pcrsons: one of whom 
aor ! Beecond ero ofthe Godhead, called the 
Son of God, and the other a man in all respects, 
sin excepted, like unto other men, who bled 
and died upon the cross to make an atonement 
. for the sins of the world. He also was a 
e Son of God, because begotten of God, 
very ‘different’ from-him who was the Beka 
_person of the Trinity, and called the only begot- 
_ten of the Eat 
_ Seripture language, it is true, is not so plain 
yand positive on. mths point as could be wished. 
_Whatsoever is said of our Saviour is mostly said 
in general terms, and is frequently applicable to 
Hae Divine or human persons. It is pro- 
fable that the ésttes received this mode of ex- 
their ideas concerning our Saviour from 
his. sia Be but one body, one visible aspect in 
the world, and from which every person who 
was not particularly inspired, or had received 
_their information from inspiration, would natu- 
rally consider and speak of him as only one per- 
son, especially Heathens and Jews, who believed 
nel in the testimony either of Christ or his apos- 
tlegs = 
“After all that.has been said, the dispute-con- 
cerning our Saviour’s personality i is only a dis- 
pute about words. For though Trinitarians do 
notin plain terms acknowledge two persons as 
existing under the one aspect of our Lord and 
se yet they do in cflect. They allow the 
_ same versity ‘of atiributes or natures in our 
“Saviour which I haye ascribed unto him} they 
eceeo ctor the same diy engity of essence or 


“402 LECTURES oN 


spiritual substances; they do not, it is true, give 
this union of human nature and essence the name 
of person as I do,and asthe seriptures have done; 
but all that is real in either nature or essence has 
been alike admitted by both themand me. They 
acknowledge all the simpler ideas whieh go to 
constitute the complex one of person and admit 
, theirunion, but cannot call that union a person. 
, And why they thus refuse to admit so plain a 
fact I cannot conceive, as it can in no measure 
interfere with the other articles of the Christian 
_church, unless incorrectly interpreted. - Person- 
al attributes in union with a rational soul are all 


_that are necessary to constitute a person, when’ 


considered individually or separately, and why , 


they should not do the same when considered in 
connexion with another person or our Redemer 
_God, must be shown before I can give up the 
point; forin giving up this, I should have rea- 
sons for giving up the doctrines of the Trivity 
in general. <b MANUNE ohé. de 
Our Athenasian brethren may possibly sup- 
pose that this system tends to lessen the value of 
our Saviour’s sufferings; that if hamanity alone 
was the subject of these as I have intimated, why 
might not the sufferings of any other man haye 
answered the same purposes as of Jesus Christ? 
To this it may be replied, that in saying that 
the atonement was effected by the sufferings of 
human nature only, I amnot differing fron ghole 
who endeavour to maintain but one personality; 
for all Trinitarians acknowledge that humanity 
only, and not Divinity, suffered. And ifDivini 
_ ay did not suffer, why is the value of human s 
, fering less than if there were but one,person 
Perhaps it may be thought by some that ifthe 


7 
7 
’ 


i 
se 


_ Menrerecr. r ft «£08 


- gtonenen twas perfect! ompli ished ng hhumas 
~ nity there would a reie no a ofa second Di- 
vine nature. But-this'is incorrect. Although 


the second person. of the Trinity,;God the Son, 


did not i own person or nature make this.a- - 


tonement for sin, as it wai cent by 
thechumanity of our S 
part of the grea 
our eame intothe world. a ¢ 
is’ fully and.effectually m ur sins, this 
_ givesus no title to the) hinged of _ ay the 
blessings ofafuture state. ‘Thismust be effected 

- a higher and superiour-power than lis found 
inhuman nature. _ Perfect obedienceis indispen- 

_ sably necessary to entitle us to happiness, ‘and 
of which man in his present fallen: state-isinca- 
_pable. A substitute, therefore, is to be supplied 
who by his.active and perfect righteousness cam 
purehase for us bliss eternal. ‘This;righteousness 
_ could not,be supplied by him: who ‘supplied the 
" sacrifice, because as he was adistinét:and inferi- 
our being--to the Divinity, and ercated by God 
the Father, he:was.as much under thelaw of God 
as other men,.and-perfeet obedience was there- 
fore required of him as the. necessary considera- 


tion for his own happiness. ~Perfect laa 


therefore, eres required for his own ‘hay 
res perform nothing supererogatory, 
which could be: ‘applied for the happiness of 
hi Pelerrialags To supply this, then, another 
-person’is necessary, and this-is the second per- 
son of the Trinity,»God the Son. He being 
bound by no law, all the obedience which he 
rendered, being- voluntary and supererogatory, 
may be applied. to those who become worthy and 
‘proper ohjects oftbis loveand mercy. Both the 
Hel Oy 


> 
~ 


s s- 


fos) 


_ persons, therefore; 
' Jesus Christ, consti 


ee 


_ thy God,” “thou sh 


F me Saviour.and Mediator, wh 


the God who is acknowledged to be three per- 


complex haracter,! tho Le a 
general use of pronoun alae no. 
interfere with the doetr: f one a 


we 


Mediator between the “Father id fallen man; 


the one to atone for oursins, the other to purchase — 

by his active and perfe ‘} 3 S or- 
the use of personal — 
to be depended up- — 


n, genera prese Saviour as one, the | 
same may be also 0! enerally. -The- 


i) 
Almighty, in alr ost all‘his declarations, speaks 


ve no other Gods but 
me.”? Nevertheless Trinitarians acknow- 
ledge him to be three persons, and why ma} not 
two persons, | f 
e, as well as 


in the singular ai saying, “I am the Lard 


he singular.pronouns I 


sons? It per be very safely — that y 


Janguage of the scriptures is =i! eral, and when- 
ever God is spoken of heis as the Tri.” 


une God, an Ricretae in the ctagecl — . 
in his addresses: also,.to his creatures he speaks 
in the .same general. terms as the one eoniplex | 


God; and ina sim nner, and with equal 
priety, our g but one Saviour or 
ediator, often speal ods is oe ins of in that J 
Th 


Saviour under two persons than with the.d 
Atine of God under a Trinity | of —— ie 


ee 


‘The doctrine of a Trinity of persons 
' Godhead proved from the Sarintigen 
adics's in the two Se ‘shown the con- 
acy of the doctrine of the ‘Trinity with the 
Unity of the Divine essence, and explained the 
personal na of our Lord and Saviour,s@ne- > 
eessary to the truth of what has been said con- © 
ok tes his real Divinity, I am now led toi inquire © 
to the nature gh ona testimonies which are so 
petal pte insp writings in < 
Em as only rendered consist-- 


Thong h God is universally represented as one ~ 
God, a a of persons is nevertheless taught — 
in all the writings bo , Old and ee 
aay ae And though this may have been 
e respectable writers who deny the © 

the ae yet the origin of their 

Pn was the ei, of F reconciling 

is doctrine to the Unity of God, which it has 

been my first object to explain, and render con- 

wy reason and truth. This objection be- 

ing d, the truth of the doctrine ay be 
ne el from the yoice of Revela 


" % 


* 


- That God subsists 
or complex ideas fo Med bythe uni 
vine essence with personality, 
emer: concluded from his name 


some translate =e, the 
word is use a 

Old Test 
The word is als 


verb or adjectiy 


ra number,asiefound 
in various pass ey Ger af 
KRXV—T7} ‘ Dent. sale Bourn ashi 355, 
Psalih iit ; Daniel Se aL and 

adjectives must always agree with substantives © 

atthe same number, we must eit se-that ° 
fis word in the original is ‘of plural import, ve | 
ae rbd has Been guilty 0 ross mist 


in grammar, and this is Be icat ~ But our. 


ponents say, although God speaks of 
a plural being, yet “how. much > 
does he speak asa singular eing;, ler 
we are to judge from this ie langu 
have more proofs of his being 
three. This, however, is not co 
for whenever the fyi ge ats 


three persons. aed b 
true and correct, for hill e perso speak KS 
himself as one, the whole fe of the 
selyesasmany. God fey ko atd 
speak of himself-as one. 

times as one person, and on et 
nity the plural or wae sin 

ex be proper. The ae 8 


¥ 


“ - tinorosy. 107 


wa 
~ ‘been the anguage of God himself, where. he so 
wk out _ creating the world, “Let w en 
mr image, after our likeness 
1A vas he thus addressing himself? We it 
Is? Certainly not; for they hadno share 
n ation. whatever. God alone hath ere va 
Mo Hetvaninned-the earth, and if so, then one ~ 
person wasadd ressingano ler person‘of the dime : 
‘Ge sig as the eis but one God, Another 
of similar import is found i in Genesis xi 
—6, 7, oer ne said, let ws god down and 
‘there found their language.” Also in Isaiah 
‘vieeay. he voice of the Lord saying, 
whom shall Isend, and who will go for ws,” ev- 
“fi pe aticibt lyse one person was holding 
ouncil with another or others. It is true, as be- 
fore observed, that such passages-are few incomi- 
' parison with ‘those where the Almighty speaks 
~ of himself in the” singular number, yet this is no 


Spr fc ‘incorrectness or corruption of the origin- 
bE aly ‘neither is stich an objection made by those 
who dispute the plurality of persons in the God- 
head. Mr. Yates, in explaining these passages, 
denies that they are indicative of three persons, 
_ upon the ground “that in all languages with. 
“which we- are acquainted, persons of gr reat pow- 
er and dignity sometimes speak of themselves in 
_ thesplural number.’? And in proof of this: he 
brings two passages in particular from the serip- 
tures. “Firstly, where Rehoboam in ‘consulting 
*some of the young men, asks “What counsel give: 
ye that we may answer this people?” 1 Kings, 
xii—9. And secondly, in the letter of Artax- 
erxes, king of Persia, i oh he replies to Bish- 
lam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their companions, 

in these ee ds: The letter which ye sent un- 

& 


oO 


7] allege 


to ws hath been plain. 


asking their ad 
may answer this 
plied than that the 
as well as himself. HA vas 
own people who were as 
self, and the answer which 
in troth to be the answe 
him as their head and r 
therefore was very p 
asifhe had said—we, 
‘ment answer you thus 
The same was the m 
taxerxes to his petition 
ter which he had receivec 
people asa nation,.and 
head and monarch. A ple Mr 
fore, was evidently impliec 
consequently can bear i 
vine language, as implyi 
sons of the Godhead. © e 
tng with his. angels in order the 
their minds, he néedeth: “not-the 
angels or any. ereated being, 
consulting: with the F ictal 
head. ‘And. furthermore, suel 
inferiours: would be highly i 
ty, as it would be making, or at] 
them, as beings‘eqnal with himself. me: 
pect to such. language among king om 
the same-objection cannot b: 
nation itself is.to be consi 
pectability as the king w 
' Kates intimates that it isa) 


“V THEOLOGY. 308: 


Ms favour that we determine the number of per- 
‘sons in the Godhead by the use of personal pro- 
4 eif God speaks with a singular — 
fers that he is but one person only, ies 
ask, how this-can be. applied to his © 
For’ though one person. in the: God- 
y speak of himself in the singular num 
ne the pronouns I and me, what argu 
is this to-prove that there are no other per- 
sons who can dothesame? Because we acknow- 
re that God i ‘is one person, it cannot be infer- 
at we acknowledge no more. An argu- 
oft is kind, t therefore, i is altoge ther withe - 
dation. — 
' itr remains that we now proceed to a consider. - 
ation of the particular persons who are compre- 
hended under.the unity of the one Supreme Bo- 
tae and these are, God the Father, God the Son,., 
God the Holy Ghost. The Divinity ofeach 
1 ‘these persons is very clearly intimated and 
. roved from various passages both in the Old and 
New Tes taments. 
n speaking of the Divinity of God, it will be 
SSary to remark that it consists in an essence, 
al id all those personal attributes which I have 
heretofore described! In saying, therefore, that 
each person i is a separate and distinct Divinity, I 
mea aly that each person possesses a distinct 
of Divine attributes; but that the same essence 
mmon unto the three. Therefore it will be 
perceived, that cach person eannot be 2separate 
anddistinet God of itself, beeause each person 
does not possess:a separate and distinct essence. 
And therefore the objection that three Divinities- 
eonstituted three Gods canbe of no force. My 
enly object i$ to-show that each person possess- 


so 


Z 


ef 


* 


_ deeds done in the body, and he who is 


it  SEOTURRS | on® 


_ ed those attributes whie constitute 


ing. * Met): © a) 
‘As there appears. ‘to ‘- 

the Divine nahure of 6 3 
be no necessity of ri 
his attributes and perf 
Proceed in the consid 
which may be urged 
our Lord and Saviour. 
sonal knowledge of tho: 
former ages, all our k 
standing in those days is 
testimony of others, fro I 
been given him, and the 
which have been aseri 
evidence concerning o 
God. What then are are 
which are here ascribed 1 
he bears the name of God m 
ly, from the words of St. . 
xiv chap. 12th yer. “So th 
shall give an account of hi ce 
it isevident that this passage rela 
and final trial at the bar of God on the 
when everyman shall give a strict 


son that will judge us on that day is Hoi 
whom. this account is to be given, ar 
son, we learn, is God. That this petstin 
God the Father is fully proved from John, 
it is said, “The Father judgeth nom sohbet 
dommitted: all judgment'to the Son; ad 
given him authority to execute ju ma 
because he is the Son of Man.”? Tohnv22, : 
¥f the Son, therefore, is the ister “igh 
account is to be given, andynot t 


* 


* | TREOLOCY.” 11% : 


0 ot Ws 

“then the Son must be God, because it isutodG 
that-our ace s areto be given. In theinex 

lace odea. that Christ. -was tempted iD 
iess'by those who were destroyed:of fier a 
“Neither let us tempt Christ a3 some 
=. tempied and were destroyed 3 

or. x—9, It may be said that the 

. word Aim is not added after tempted, and there- 

fore cannot: preve that he was the person who 

Patra tempted; urging that the explanation ts, that 

we are not to tempt Christ as some of them also 

_ tempted God in the’ wilderness.~> This exposi- 

‘tion hasybeen given by many Socinian writers. 

t this, instead - ing any- objection, is an » 
exposition in favour of our theory: Fer if it is 
true, then it is-very apparent that St. Pant con- 
sidered our Saviour as a person of equai authori- 
ty and power with him who was tempted in the 
wilderness, and considersit as wicked and.dread- 
ful'to tempt him. as it was to tempt God in the — 
wilderness; for we are warned notto tempt him, 
lest similarvevils befati us as did them who 
tenrpted in the wilderness, and were destroyed 
of fiery serpents... It is therefore evident that if 
this interpretation be admitted, our Saviour is a 
being of equal dignity with God who governed 
in the wilderness, and therefore. God himself, as 
none but different persons ef the same Godhead 
cam be equal in dignity. - 

Again, God the Father hath admitted_the Di- 
vinity of his Son by expressly calling him God. 
“But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is 
forever and ever, .a sceptre of righteousness is 
the sceptre of thy kingdom.” He also contin- 
ues his address to the Son, saying, “And thou, 
Lord, in the begianing hast laid the foundations - 


* 
_ * 
va a 


?? 


ats 


me 


ri2- LECTURES ON 


: of the earth, and the RS are Me wor 


thy hands, They shall perish, but thou fee 9 

est; and they shail all wax old as doth a garment; 
and as a vestureshalt thou fold them up and they 
shall be changed; but-thou art the same and t 
years shall not fail.”? Heb. i—8, 9, 1,12.— 
That Jesus Christ-was truly: and | ‘the au- 
thor of the heavens and the earth may here; as 
also from many other places, be fairly deduced. 
And he was not only their anther, but their 
Lord, and for whom they were ented and o 
sO, then there is no higher. powe St who’ — 
them to be made for himself api: 
as his instrument or mean as some hi 


4 
the primitive fathers. St. ‘Bar as says, ° 


voured to prove Theale e doc 

the Lord of the world, the maker of the sun, the 
person by whom and to whom are all things.” 
“He is,”’ says Justin Martyry“the word by. which * 
the heaven, the earth, and every creature was 
made.” ‘Tatian says, «He made man the image 
of his immortality, and before man he made the ~ 
angels.” Consequently -he must have existed 
previous to every created being. We rational ~ 
creatures,” saith Clemens of Alexandria, “are 
the work of God the word; for he was and is 
the Divine’principle of all things, by whonr all 
things were made, and who, as the framer of all 
thing gs, in the beginning, gave also life toms, by 
whom are all things; who made man, and is our 
God and maker, the cause of all. ereati¢td’ * And 
in the third rf the same doctrine was 

by Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Novatian 

and others; erefore we perceive tha 
age the Daiepone Saviour was admit 


ted by 
aie learned members of the ayn 
« : 5 


-. DHROLOGY. 113 


And the assertion of his being the Create of the 
universe seems to have been in part the founda- 
tion of this belief. « x 
In the next place our Saviour was not only 
lled God, but the frue Ged, asin 1 John v— 
20. “And we are in him that is true, in his Son 
' Jesus Christ, this is the true God and eternal 
~ life,”?. and, this:pass vidently implies: that 
both the Father and the Son were here believed 
as the true Fae both.of Whom they consider- 
ed themsely being their members and fol- 
Jowers. eis also called) God manifest in the 
“And without controversy great is. the 
ry of liness; God was manifested in 
the flesh; justified in the spirit; believed on in 
the world, received up into glory.””: 1 Tim. iii— 
16. That this.passage can be.applieable to none 
but Jesus Christ, I think every. person will ad- 
mit, because.to God the Father it cannot a ; 
as he could not be received up into glory with- 
out heing firstly manifested in material’ form up- 
on the earth. “i 
.The interpretation of these words by Dr, Whit- 
by.is. very plain and forcible. “1.* The word, 
saith St. John, was made flesh and dwelt among 
us, Joh 14, and we have seen his glory. * He 
was ephanerothe, i.e. mani fested,.1 John iii—5; 
Vili-l, 4, and came in the flesh who was the Son 
of God. ; He who. was in the form of God, and 
thought it no robbery to be equal-with God, was 
found inethe likeness of «man. Phil. ii—6, 7. 
He that was God blessed forevermore, was also 
of the seed of i > tl 


ix—5. 2. B was justified .of the.spirit, as do- 
ing those miracles onearth by hich he justi 
' his mission against all theaccusations of the Jews 


“ 


ae, ey “H 
ae ¥ oie » 


f David according to the flesh. Rom. . 


i aS 
rad LECTURES ON 


he Spirit }of God, Matth, xii-—28, einai.” 
bgt Set Gat Math a, inh 


spirit of holiness, Rom. i—3, 4 ' sending that 
spirit after his ascensi _ Acets ii. 
23. Which he had promised lessup= 


on earth, and by whieh By pest 4 nvinced 
of his righteousness. ngels, 
oat hiss entrance i he world worship 
Heb. i—6; wh rated. irth, and 
Ms. notice of it to"thegw orld; who minister 
# m in-the desoiditien and. inh “agot ies} 2 
2 who were presentat his resurrection, 
him at bis oe into heaven. ellie 

~»whole history of the*'Gos that 
« preached to hb Gentiles se ele on in the 
world.” Ané lastly, he was received up ‘into 
heaved, as is proved - ~~ Mark x 9; Luke 
xxiv—dl; Acts i—2, _ These there- 
 fangyean ie  icatia. to no person but our Sa- 
viour, who. must ‘therefore have ‘been the God 
who was manifested in the flesh. aren: tho 
pe is also called God blessed forever. “Whose 
e fathers, and of whom as concerning the 
é dech,-Ch st eame, who is : blessed 
- + forever.’? Rom:ix—5, He is also called God 


—13. He is. actiepatnaedl said. to possess. all the 
Sulness of the Godheud bodily, being thehead 
of allprineepality and power.* r in him 
dwelleth all the fulness of the'Godhead 
And ye are:complete in ser y bis th 
, of all-principality: and power.” | 
» In the next place, that our Saviou: 
appears from the declaration of 1 th migh 
* himself, where: he says, “I,eveniI,am tl ie L 


end beside me there is no Saviour.” Joasdiiia2a. ; 


over all,in Rom. x= 2; the great God, Tit.ii A 


THEoLody.. ~ $45 


Fe: ‘But it is/acknowledged by all that Jesus Christ ts 
viour, therefore he must be the one ieee 


, he Gad, as none but God can be our 
Salant aceedine to this declaration. Many o» 
Sapptied an might be cited-where the title God” 
ed unto JesusChrist; the quotations, how- 
‘ever, which have been made are sufficient. for 
ys Sonim of everyunprejudiced mind. 
As a second argument in proof of the Divi 
ty of. our Saviour, I will endeavor to shaaal : 
possesses all those qualifications which ‘e 
tute a Divine being, and which have been a: 
-eribed unto God'the:Father. That he was a Spi- 
ritual being will not bedenied. That he was an 
Omnipotent being may be proved from various 
passages of the inspired word, He acknowledg~ 
es himself that all power was. possessed by. hith 
both in heayen and earth, and if he possessed all 
power, nothing more was wanting to constitute 
him Omnipotent. The history of: his: works, 
however, decidedly confirm our belief in his Om- 
-nipotence. The winds and the sea obeyed him. 
With power and authority he commanded the” 
unclean’ spirits and they obeyed him. He'could 
raise the dead, cast out Devils, heal the sick, give 
‘sight to the blind, ears to the deaf, and finally 
burst the bands of death and raised hijupell fi from 
the sepulehre wherein he had ‘been laid; and 
who but Omnipotence couldthus change the com- 
mon laws of Nature at his own will and pleasure? 
“who shall change our vile body that it may 
be fashioned like unto his glorious body, accof- 
ding swith the working whereby he is able e- 
ven to subdue all things unto himself?” His Om: 
-nipotence is also proved from his being the au- 
‘thor of the ‘universe, as * a Paul yery plainiy in- 


i 


& 


ee a ia 
. "4 


116 " 2HOTURES On 


forms us; “who is the image of the invisible 
God, the first born of every creature ; for by hi 
were all things created that are in heaven, and 


that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether 


they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, . 


or powers; all things were created by him and 
_for him. And he is before all things, and by 
him all things consist.” Col. i—16,17. The 
-same fact is also related in Hebrews i—2, 10, as 


-» Ihave already quoted. Learning, therefore, that 


- 


esus Christ is the Creator of all things, beeen 
timony of Natural Theolgy which yery evident- 
_ly proves the Omnipotence of him who is their 


_author can be applicable as well to our Saviour # 
1 pur i 


God the Father. The Divinity of our Saviour 


therefore proved even from Natural bier”) 


provided it is allowed that-he is the author of all 
things, and which must be allowed hy all Chris- 
fians. v rid 
' But it will be answered, Jesus Christ created 
_ them only through the command of God the Fa- 


ther, and therefore God the Father is truly their 


creator, because the designer, and our Saviour al- 
so, because the executioner or agent ef the Fa- 
ther. This interpretation, however, is no argu- 


ment against the Omnipotence of our Saviour; . 


for he who executes must possess the same active 
power as he who commands and designs. And 
furthermore, unless he was really the eternal 
God he could not be the author of all ereatures, 
nor exist before all creatures, as the Scriptures 
inform us, as he eould not ereate himself, nor ex-~ 
ist before himself. “And this evidently confirms 
his Eternity, for none but an eternal being ca 
exist before all other beings, unless betwee 
“come into existence withoute cause. 


a 
« 


" 


~~ ‘ 


THEOLOGY. tit’ 


| Omniseience: is another attribute which has 
seribed unto our Saviour by his apostles 
liseiples. His disciples, upon hearing his 
uae and the wisdom with which he spake 
said unte aim, “Now we are sure that thou know-- 
a 1 thi ings; and needeth not that any man 
should ask thee ; by this we believe that thou 
camest forth from God,”? John xvi—so. Paui 
tells his Collosian converts, that “great was the 
mystery of God, and of the Father, oes of Christ, 
in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom wad 
knowledge.”? When the Scribes and Pharisees 
‘reasoned together he perceived their thoughts: - 
“For it is he that searches the reins and hearts.” 
John informs-us, that when Jesus asked Si- 
mon the third time if he loved him, Peter said 
unto him “Lord thou Enowest all things; thow * 
knowest that E love thee.”? John xxi—@7. These 
are certainly sufficient illustrations of the Om- 
niscience oftJesus Christ, though others might be 
cited. And from this arises ‘the attr ibute of Im- 
mutability. He who knoweth all things, know- 
eth also to act in the best and most proper man~ 
er. And therefore as his’ knowledge tbe 
increased or diminished, neither can a hie actions @ 
or determinations be changed, because they are 
pee s founded upon wisdom ‘and truth. "That 
aviour was- Immutable may he inferred - 
fromthe words of St. Paul to the Hebrews, when 
he says, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, na: 
and forever.” He is consequently the same i 
knowledge, in power, in space, in duration, ees 
everlasting to everlasting, the one and only God. 
From what has been said it will be- ‘perceived — 
that Jesus Christ is a being who ssses all . 
power, wisdom and knowledge; eteraal,immuta- 


a 
3is. Paki ab 
ble and self- ; Lord of lords: 


kings, and very God. 
In addition to these prools of 
our Saviour, it will be proper to quote 
of Isaiah as relative both to his natu 
ance in the world: “For un i 
unto us a son is given; and the gove 
be upon his shoulders ; and th arena 
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mi 
the Everlasting Father, the Prince of 
saiah ix—6. Furthermore, our Saviour 
said of himself “Iand my Fatherare one.” / 
other passage may be cited from 
our Redeemer is spoken of as a distinet person 
from the God of Israel, and yet is called the 
Lord of Hosts: “Thus saith the Lord the one 
of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of H 
Tam the fitst, and I am the last, and beside | 
there is nowGod. ” Tsaiah xliv—6. ‘That pied, 
bees ist isthe ‘Redeemer oken of is evident, 


bast 


a ee 


s ealled toast Old e 
ents; and th a8 as. 
‘ aa srael says, beside me there is: no’ 


ease this Redeemer and the 
i... al must be the same God, though 
persons. Similar language coneerning our Sa- 
viour is bea in the Revelation of St. John, xxii 
13: “| am Alpha and aa the beginni 
wand the -endy the first and the ppp. 
ij ms which are here applied to our Saviourcan. 
e applied to none but God, so Jesus Christ must — 


be the God who isthus spoken of. bape te crt there- 


ore to unite with St. Paul and , 
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead “box ‘iy? 
Our Unitarans say that all ese a attributes of 
Omnipotence, Omnisciencean hole fulness. 


™ 


| 


THEOLOGY. 119° 


tf God were ouapge to our Saviour as a king 
3 power to his son, a do not belon 
es as a Divine ~ This hae 
ever, i ossible; for if our Saviour possessed 
fuln God, then he was Eternal and Self-- 
ent, which are attributes which never--ean 
he delegated, and therefore can.only be essential, 
- These areonly a few of the passages which might 
be-adduced in proof of the Divine nature of Je- 
sus Christ, and ought to be sufficient for the con-- 
vietion of every unprejudiced mind. Yet, that- 
there’may remain as little doubt as possible con- 
cerning the truth of so important an article of 
the Christian Faith, Iwill here make one re-- 
mark, and which I think can be fully established; - 
and that is, if our-Saviour- Jests Christ was not 
God, he was:the minister of*the Devil, a deceiv- 
er, a liar, a hypocrite, and his doctrines were in-. 
to lead people into Polytheism and Idol- 
»atry. Every person knows that we are com- 
‘tmanded to worship. the Lord our God and him 


only, and Jesus Chri “rts ie -com~ 


mandment with his own word.. also a 
weil known fact that our Saviour was worship- 
ped in many instances. When he wasin the ship. 
-with-his disciples they eame and worshipped | 
him; he was-also worshipped by the ruler and 
Canaanitish woman, and‘when he came from 
the sepulehre and went forth to meet.his disci- 
ples, they held. him by the feet and worshipped 
him. They didnot do this from enthusiasm, but 
from a sincere love of God. And indeed the My 
mighty himself hath commanded that he sho 
he worshipped, saying: ‘‘Let al) the sper 
God worship him.’’ And this command was ob- 
served at his birth, not only by angels, but by 


ae 


ae a 


of the mattyr Stephen, when Pryce ana 
. “Lord Jesus-receive my spirit;” for Sate 


120 LECTURES ON 


men. Now, if the Peart Se On 
manded us to worship Christ, and orships 
none but God, then Ch 
is inconsistent with k 
God, his disciples. w 
dolatry, and he of the t 
sumption in suffering h 
ene when he knew tha 


only as such, a mere man Begins creatu 
would undoubtedly have errr, { 

shipping of him as an act of Idolatry. € 

our also received and was “pl cased 

worship; whereas if he wason 
righteousness was not equal to the right 
of his disciples. For when the ape stles | 
bas and Saul were at Lystra, and the people ee 
with oxen and garlands unto the gate “for pre 4 
purpose of doing sacrifice unto. : 
“rent their clothes and ran in among the people,» : 
saying, “Sirs why do ye these things? We alsov 
are men of lilvy passions with you.” Acts xiv—— 

M4,15. Again,if our Saviour was mot truly 
God, it was certainly a very foolish ae 


of all men: must return and be committed to God’ 
who gave them. Our Lord is also very frequent~ ‘ 
ly addresséd as a person who can forgive sing 
and who can forgive sin but God only? ini { 
so evident that he himself taught his~ Divinity, ; 
and this was the very reason “why the Scribes — 
and Pharisees objected to we , because, say writ 
he maketh, himself equal with God. And u 
he did thus teach his equality to God, su 

objection could not haye been made. In 


our 


*. 
v [Hone ey,” 19¢ 
pe {Titenoey~ 12% 


seriptures he was ever addressed with the same 
reverence'and respect as God the Father. The A~- 
postles were taught to baptise equally in_ 
r ‘ather, Sonand Holy Ghost. - 
of the-benedictions of St. Paul, the name 
, is put the first in order, thus, nae 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the love of - 
God, and the fellowship°of the Holy Ghost be 
with yowall.”” Asanother instance of the e+ 
= persons of the Godhead, we read 
in 1 John v—7, “There are three that bear re- 
cord in heaven, the Father, the Word and the — 
Holy Ghost;and:thesethree are one.”? These 
sages certainly tend to confirm us in the be- 
Hef of our Saviour’s Divinity, and must have 
been very improper language in the. inspired 
writers, unless it was their object to teach the 
py to the world. “The age in which our Sa- 
viour appeared urto mankind, and in which the 
New Testament was written, was anage of Hea-. 
thenism and Idolatry; consequently it was the 
duty of the inspired writers in all their ‘histori-. 
cal or doctrinal writings, to avoid every thing 
which could have the least tendency to Idolatry 
among the people. But if Jesns Christ was ne 
more than’a man, or a finite being of any kind, 
their writings generally certainly tend to the op- 
posite effect, as they are calculated to encourage 
the doctrine of Polytheism. Butas the voice of 
inspiration is not the voice of error, it is very eve 
ident that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was be- 
lieved and'taught in the apostolic age, and: it was 
the particular object of the inspired penmen to. 
convey this doctrine to succeeding generations 
as well es to spread the same throughout every 
part of the earth, 


r 


x 


_ this is algo'the redson why our Saviour 


P ® 
.. sufficient proved the Divinity fJe- 

sus Christ; vit rim be my bjt » collect 

those’evi v0 0 es 


the ninth | chapter of the Epi tl 
Romans, where the Apostle c 
and Jesus Christ to bear witness 0 
his words, which was in substar 
- oath. An‘dath “is allowe 
rs on the Bible to be an ae 
ship, in which God is call 
to the truth. He is thas e 
of the truth, because he knoweth all 


Holy Spirit are said or intimated to be wi 
of the truth, beceuse they are*pérsons who pos- © 
sess all knowledge and all wisdom, and therefor 


are the most proper as j s concerning the 


rectitude of our conduct or the interitionsiof the — 


heart 2 et, Sy 
That the Holy Ghostis Omniscient, the same — 
apostle teaches us ‘in his Epistle tothe Corinthi- 
ans. * “The Spirit searcheth all things, yeathe — 
deep things of God.” That thie-opint is a per- 
son, and, not the influence or inpiration of the 
Deity, whereby he stirs up the mind to medita- 
tron and godly conversation, he fully shows b 
comparing the spirit of God with the spirit 
maa. “For what man‘knoweth the things of ¥ 
man save the spirit of a man which isin him? : 
Even so the things-of God knoweth no man but — 
the Spirit of God.”? The Spirit of God, there- 


fore is.God, inasmuch as the spirit of man is mans 


wae 


ve] 


_THEOLO Gy. 123° 


‘The spititof every inte laztopsh being is that es-- 
ential part which is possessed of knowled 
power, and the otherattributes which are pe 
Tamabipuctiended under, that of personali- - 
ty, and is-represented as such in the.seriptures;: . 
as may be inferred from the worde of Stephen, . 
which Ihave already quoted, when he «said,. 
“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”” The same ale 
Por ei of the apostles concerning the 
meaning of. this-»word, as -we may learn when 
they saw our Saviour walk cing on the sea, “they 
were troubled, saying, itis a spirit, and they cried 
out for fear.”’ Matth. xiv—26: That the Holy 
Spirit isealled the Spirit of God-in the same sense. 
cannot be denied, because he is-at the same time 
spoken of as-a personal being. Theapostle fur- - 
ther says, “But all these gifts worketh the same 
spirit, dividing them to every man seycrally as 
he will.””? Here again we perceive that not only 
personality i in general is ascribed unto the Holy 
Spirit, from the use of the pronoun fe, but a will 
also is said to determine his actions, whereas 2 
will or freedom of choice and power of determi- 
nation is never ascribed to any but a-personal - 
being. It also teaches us that this Spirit was no 
created person, because no created being of his 
own inherent power is capable. of” conferring 
those gifts which were bestowed. upon the apos- 
tles and diseiples. Again, this passage very evi- 
dently implies that-this Spirit. was God; for 5t 
Paula little before had heen ascribing these same - 
operations to God, which he now says were perr - 
formed by the Holy Spirit. 

We have a further proof of the Divinity of the 
Holy Ghost in the account of Ananias and Sa~ 
phira. ‘Peter: said, Ananias, why hath satan, 


7 


324 LECTURES ON : 
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, 


to keep back part. of ‘the price of the Ja 
While it remained was it not thine own, and af. _ 
ter it was sold was it not in thine own power 
Why hast thou conceived this ‘thing imthine 
heart? Thou hast not lied unto men but unto~ 
God.” Acts v3, 4.) 158 » Ananias lied — 
unto the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost must have — 
been.a person, and that person, ‘asqwe are told; — 
was God. It is true that the werd spirit is fre- _ 
quently used in the scriptures in a differentsense — 
from that of-a persona! being, or the essential 
part of man or God... This, however, cannot be 
said of the passages which I have quoted, as they 
are sufficiently plain to warrant the above ex- 
planation, as will appear from the context: That 
the Holy Ghost isa person wih appear-evident, 
if we will only take the trouble of consulting 
those various. passages-where he is represented 
as promising, comforting, speaking, acting on 
many occasions, teaching, ordaining, conmmmand- 
ing, and many other things whieh can be attri- 
buted only to persons. In confirmation of this, — 
see Acts ix—31; John xiv—i6; 1 Cor, ii—i3; 
Acts xiii—2; xx—28; xxviii—25; ii—33. With — 
these evidences, the Holy Spirit is to be consid- 
ered as God, coequal and coeternal with theMa- — 
ther and the Son, and possessed of the same glo- 
rious perfections. The passagesfrom the Divine — 
word which Dhave here quoted, with many oth- — 
ers which might have been cited of equal weight 
and authority, in confirming the Divinity of Je- — 
sus Christ and the Holy Spirit, must-eertainly 
be sufficient with any man who duly-reads and — 
understands. Upon this doctrine of the Trinity 
@hristianity. itself is founded. Tf this fallspaye - 


e throw away our Bibles, our prayer- 
: Il our former hopes of ever arrivi 
<igeof the truth. We may make this 
Ml; eoncerning that-which is promis- 
! us hereafter all is doubt and, uncertainty, 
i: God possesses t this plurality. of attributes 
re - to the.severai persons of the Trini- 
y be inferred from the manner in which 
pk addressed in heaven by his angels, as 
expressed in the vision of Isaiah, where the Se» 
ee “eried one to another bet said, Holy, 


oly, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole 


‘th is fall of his glory. ”? Tsa. vi—3. Also in 

| ae vision of St. John; the four beasts are repre- 
sented as resting not day nor night “saying Ho- 
ty, Hl, Hoiy Lord God Almighty, whic was, 

| is, and is to come.’ ? Rev. iv—8. The idea 

sh to bethat God isa being whois thrice holy, 

| therefore seraphims, in addressing so august a 
being,spoketo each individual person of the God- 
head, praisingeach for his holiness and righteous- 
ness. I donot, however, consider these two pas- 
sages as a sufficient testimony to build a theory 
upon. My chief argument is, the necessity of 
such a plurality; for unless there are more than 
ene person in the Godhead, I view the doctrine 
of Redemption and Salvation as altogether false 
and vain, I have reason to consider the subject 
in this light from the Immutability and Justice 
of God. This will be seen by referring to the 
first Covenant, or that which was originally es- 
tablished between God and. man at his creation. 
When man was created-his nature was that of 
purity and holiness, for he was formed in the 
Image of his God. This perfection and happi- 
Ress he was permitted to retain upon the conde 


| THEOLOGY, 4265 


. 


A26 aeanal 
ti reece 
the eon of the cc “ 


chiefly comprehended 
Lord God comm: 
tree of the garden th nC 
the tree of the knowledge of goo 
shalt not eat of it: for in the day th 
est’ thereof thou shalt syrély 
Was, man disobeyed and becam 
condemnation of the law;-and « 
to this law, was positively dem 
God; and this death -was not only natural, but 
spiritual and eternal. Tha t God, hO-as a per 
sonal being established t with mar 
had no right to counteret by is 
had-once firmly promised or threa ne né 
not in the same person any ht to pardon rm 
the Seimpeige which was di yu 
isfaction or neither one j 
from that law until all be seen 
“be fulfilled until perfect sati 
ther by man or some other being a 
in the place of man. enor Christina on 
ed as this substitute,-and i he 
law. Bat satisfaction for-sin Bef ca ever 
bring to eternal glory, it) ‘ the 
punishment due to us torre Shee the ne 
it brings no rewards. Remission of sin een 
entitle us*to heaven; this. big t 
only by perfect and » -active. ce, F 
has heaven been promi: bropon tie 
tion of such obedience. ° 
dered himself imperfect, is of hit a si ; 
, incapable of performing that’ 
“which is required, and the 
eternal happiness, ualess thes 


i, 


ag? 
person who gave himself as a substitute in re- 
ceiving the:punishment due for sin, ‘shall also 
perform that perfect righteousness for him which 
shall ype him to heaven. Who shall be this 
-person?. The man Jesus Christ? -He may he- 
come a ote for sin, but he cannot apply his 
ze tive righteousness for our happiness here- 
x he nan Jesus Christ was bound to ren- 
rf edience in order that he might en- 
sure se own happiness. God hasa natural right 
to obedience from all his creatures which he has 
ae and no created being can render any obe- 

ience unto God which he does not owe, and 
therefore cannot substitute himself in the place 
-of man for the. purpose of obtaining, by his right- 
sness, Future rewa for hind in heaven. 
efore if no fh. ot being, as the man Christ 
esus was, can become a substitute to: ppeciaem 
obedience for man, then, unless there is a plu- 
_vality of personsin the Godhead, whocan perform 
“this obedience instead of man, such obedi- 
ence can never be rendered ‘unto God, and man 
may forever despair of happiness and heaven. 
The man Jesus Christ cannot do this, neither 

can God the Father; and unless there isa second 
person in the Godhead, who owes no obedience, 
and is free from all duty, and by his own'volun- 
-tary righteousness in substitution for ours, ob- 
tains for us future rewards, we can have no hope 
-of ever becoming heirs of eternal glory. God 
hath given us a “law, and hath thereby bound 
himself as well as us to abide by the same.. He 
» has rio more right’to act contrary to his own law 
ie a state has to act contrary to its own con- 


gone OGY. 


e0u 


| 1 


itution; that is if heis a just God; and he con- 
quently cannotpardona criminal for his crimes 
: L 


3 
, 


* Pree 


ee 


| tp 
pe _— LEOTURES “oN . 


‘without satisfaction, unless he is infringing upon 
his own word. But you ask, is not God a mer 


ciful as_ as a just being? Can he not be 
merciful and just at the same time? I answer, — 
he can; but not out satisfaction for sin. To 


mercy, but injustice. Me exercis 
wards man, signifies to p accou! 
satisfaction made by another in place of in 


pardon without a ic Margao kind is 


‘guilty, or to permit the substitution of one to 


“take the punishment due for the sins of another. 


“of a second person ingge Godhead, who, being - 
c 


Thus we are necessiated to admit the existence 
possessed of a second consciousness, is enabled 
to perform voluntary a ee | 
we must acknowledge ca vanity of allour 
of future appiness. ‘There must bei sa 
head a second person to pero 
be performed by the same * thio emus 
‘Satisfied altogether; that obedience can be per- 
formed by — the person who requires it, or to” 
whom it is due is absurd; and that the law must — 
forever remain unsatis ed God himself hath po- 
‘sitively contradicted, it must therefore be satis- 
fied by this second person. Each person of the 
Godhead in all his designs and doings is natu- 
fn independent, and not subject to the one or 
the other; consequently if one person by his ov 
will places himself in subjection to another, the. 
obedience which he thus renders in volun- | 
tary subjection, i is altogether a aca 
ogation, and consequently may be applied to the - 
benefit of man, as if it had beenhis own act 


_ obedience, and thereby entitle him to sal 


* and eternal happiness; when without it he must 


have remained forever hopeless, Jesus Christ, . 


; 
> 


. _ THEOLOGY. 129- 
therefore, the second person of the Godhead has. 
by his active righteousness given unto man the 
privilege of receiving heaven as the reward” 
thereof; or of remaining in his natural state of 
condemnation for sin and disobedience; and this. 
second person must have beena secondconscious- 

se God, for none but a Divine person could 
perform the lala which I have here ascribed 
unto our Savio 

In rig oe of what has been said concern-- 
ing this i important doctrine, we have, in addition. 
to “the bestimony of the inspired writers, the 
voice of those who immediately succeeded them; 
their testimony, therefore, must cer tainly be ve- 
ry important, because they had a better opportu- 
nity of understanding the primitive doctrines of | 
the church, before they became corrupted with - 
superstition and error. Clemens Romanus has’ 
been acknowledged by all chronologers to have 
been contemporary with some of the. apostles, 
and was probably per sonally acquainted with 
them, especially St.Paul, who is said to have own- 
‘ed himasa fellow labourer, he says, “The scep-. 
tre of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, - 
came notin the show of pride and arrogance, - 
though he could have done so, but with humili- 
ty.”? By him, therefore, whom writers acknow- 
ledge to have been a fellow labourer with Paul, 
our Saviour was considerec and spoken of as the 
true God, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was 
mar tyred under Trajan in the year 107, also ac- 
knowledges the Divinity of Jesus Christ in his 
epistle to the Ephesians, saying, “There is one 
physician, both fleshly and spiritual, made and 
not made, God incarnate.’ In the same epistle 
he agaia says, cTenorande was taken aay, and 


Not ; ee Np 
ad ww 


430 LECTURES ON 2. 
the old kingdom apelin God himself'appear- 
ing in the form of man.” ; 

Ta the next place, Polyearp, bishop of Smyr- 
na, who flourished about the same time, says, 
“Every living creature shall worship Christ;’ 
pit: he is to be aa he must he 

od. ; 

Justin Martyr, who flourished about the year ~ 
118, says to the Pagans, “We worship and adore 
the God of righteousness, and his Son, and his 
Holy Ghost of prophecy,—and we hold it un- 
fawful to worship any but God alone.”’ See his 
Apology. This isan incontrovertible proof that 
the Christians as a body, in his day, held to the 
doctrine of a Trinity in Unity. Tor he asserts. 
positively, that it is unlawful to worship any but 
God alone, and still says that they worshipped 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which’ 
ts an evidence, that each, in their opinion, was 
truly God. eae 

And Tatian, also, who wasa disciple of Justin 
Martyr, confirms the same to the Grecians, say- 
ing, “We donot, O Grecians, act the part of 
fools, nor do we tell you idle stories, when we 
declare that God was born in human form.”— 
Irenzus, who wrote in the year 202, and Theo- 
philus also in nearly the same words, says, “The 
Son from eternity coexisted with the Father, 
and from the beginning he always revealed the’ 
Father to angels and archangels, and principali- 
ties and powers, and all to whom it pleased him 
to reveal him.”’ Lib. iv. against the Heretics. 

St. Clement, A.D. 200, says, ‘So that the God 
of all things is only one good and just Creator, 
the Son who was inthe Father.” And the Sy- 
ned of Antioch in their letter te Paul of Sama- 


¥ 


THEOLOGY. © — 13h. 
the year 270, in confirmation of our | 
, “The messenger of the Father is 
is himself Lord and God.”’ Epist. © 

Synod Antioch ad Paul Samos. 

Tertullian says, “Some think that Omnipo-; 
tent is a title which does not agree to the Son 
as if he who is to come were not Onsite 

_ Whereas the Son of the Almighty is as much 
ty as the Son of God is God.” Lib.i. — 
og c. 8, p. 119 D Paris 1629. 

‘Hermas, who flourished about the year70,thus ~~ 
speaks: “The Son of God’ is more ancient than ~ 
any creature, insomuch that he was in council 
with the Father upon the subject of creation. 
The name’ of the Son of God is great and with- _ 
out bound, and the whole earth is upheld by him.” 

*s Enquiry, page 17.° 

Athenegoras, who wrote about the year 175, 
says, “By him and through him were all things 
made. The Father and the Son being one; the 
Son being in the Father and the Father in the 
Son, in the unity and power of spirit." We pro- 
fess, and his Son the word, and the Holy Ghost, 
and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 
are truly one as concerning power.’ Athene- 
goras in Legation, pro Christianis p.27 A Ed 
Colon 1686. - . 

These extracts undeniably prove that the doc- 
trine of the Trinity was held and taught by the 
immediate successors and even companions of 
the apostles; and indeed it was never disputed 
until a little before the Council of N ice, which 
was summoned in the year 325, when, 1n a pub- 
lic council of the whole church ‘the decision was 
still in favour of the doctrine. And if this was 
the doctrine of the primitive ages, we have reu- 


192 LECTURES ON 


son to believe from this circumstance alone, that: 
it was the true doctrine, as there would be far 


less opportunity for corruption than in those ages 


which were further removed from its first insti- 


tution as‘an article of Faith by Christ.and his 


apostles, 


“ 


/ MHEOLQST, «3 


peeeie tik esigt 
LECTURE Ve 
eee ts ete 
: ‘ 
aT aas 


Some Objections “nswered. - 
; : a? 

Hayne sufficiently proved the doctrine of a 
Trinity in Unity, from the declarations of both 
reason and the word of God, ail that now remains 
is to answer some. particular objections which 
have been made against the equality of the Son 
with the Father, and the personality of the Holy 
Ghost; wherein I shall endeavour to shaw: that 
many of these passages of scripture which have 
been so confidently quoted against us, are appli- - 
eable only to our Saviour’s human:nature, and ~ 
therefore can be of no service in disproving the 
Divinity and equality of the second person of the » 
Trinity with God the Father. -. 

The following are some of those passages 
which have been considered by Unitarian. wri- 
ters as unanswerable objectionsagainst the equal 
ity of theSon with the Father: “Yeare Christ’s, .. 
and Christ is God’s.’? 1 Cor. i1ii—23. .“That is, . 
as ye are subject to the dominion of Christ, so 
Christ is subject to the dominion of God.” This 


Reith 


B94 LECTURES ON 


is very true in relation tohis human nature. As a 
created being similar in all respects but that of 
sin to othermen, he was truly obedient unto the. 
will of the Father, but this being altogether ap- 
plicable to his humanity, is altogether without 
force or effect as to the inferiority ot his Divini- 
ty or the second person of the Trinity. 

Mr. Yates has also cited the following passa- 
ges for the same end, wherein itis stated or pro- 
ved that our Saviour was anointed by God the 
Father, and therefore must be considered, as our 
author supposes, inferior-and subservient unt¢ 
him, as when our Saviour said, God “hath an- 
nointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.” 
Luke iv—18. “He said unto them, but who say 
ye that lam? Peter answering, said, The Christ 
(thatis the anointed) of God.” Luke ix—2t 
“The rulers were gathered together against the 
Lord, and against his Christ, (or his anointed.) 
For ofa truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom 
thou hast anointed, both Herod’and Portius Pi- 
Tate, with the Gentiles and the’ people of Israel, 
were gathered together.” “Acts ivy—26, 27. 
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
Spirit, and with power.” Acts x—38. “God, e- 
ven thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
gladness above thy fellows.” Heb. i—9. 

These passages, with many more which have 
been urged with the greatest confidence, to prove 
the inferiority of the Son to the Father, are ap- 
plicable generally to the human person of Christ. 
Few remarks, therefore, upon these passages — 
will be necessary. That this man; Jesus Christ, 
was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with the 
oil of gladness above his fellow creatures, wheth- 
er memor angels, will-not be denied. Thathe suf= 


* 


? 


THEOLOGY: - 495° 


fered pain and’'agony in this world in an extreme 
degree, and indeed possessed all the frailties of 
human nature generally, except sin, and was in- 
finitely inferior to God the Father, or the Son 
with whom he was united, will also be admitted. 
It will therefore be altogether useless for me ta. 
review many more of our author’s quotations on) 
this point, as they can no longer be considered 
objections to the equality of God the Son with 
the Father, but have a reference only to the hu- 
man person of Christ, whose inferiority all ac- 
knowledge. __ 

It will be proper, however, to note a few par- 
ticular objections which are connected with the- 
present subject in debate. For Mr. Yates con 
siders if a very strong argument in his favour,. 


_ and against the Divinity of Jesus Christ, that the> 


seriptures in speaking of God and our Saviour’ 
in the same sentence, always represents them as” 
distinet fromeach other. He says, “If with a 
sincere desire of arriving at the truth, we apply 
to this source of information, we, inthe first place, 
observe numerous passages which represent Je- 
sus Christ as a distinct being from God.” To 


~eonfirm the strength of this argument he brings 


seventeen passages of scripture, among which are 
the following : “Grace be to you, and peace from 
God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ.?” 
Rom. i—7; 1 Cor. i—3. “Grace be with you, 
mercy and peace from God the Father and from . 
the Lord Jesus Christ.”” 2 John, 3. “Peace be 
to the brethren, and love with faith from God 
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.””? Eph. vi 
—23. The inference which he draws is this:— 
“One of the two is in every instance called God, 
to the other this title is neyer applied, and since 


te LECTURES: ON 


it is certain that there is but one God, the i 
“rence appears irresitable that this other per 
namely our Lord Jesus € i 
Yates on Unitarianism, pag 
John i—1, 2, where it is said that the word, or 
Jesus Christ, was with God, and therefore con-. 
Bludes that he must be a different being. 

' In answer to these remarks, I would observe;- 
in the first place, that though our Saviour as not 
possitively called Godin all the passage here ci-. 
ted, the title is given him in some of them,- and- 
‘in many others which he has not particularly 
quoted. To select a few passages and form our 

“ opinions from these without reference to the, 
: context generally, is indicative of a regu- 
lated by prejudice and bigotry; not safe 
2 ter truth, but zealous in the support of certain, 
ve preconceived opinions, whether founded in truth 
orerror. One ofthe verses quoted by our au- 
thor in part, expressly asserts that our Saviour 
was with God, therefore, says our author, he 
must be a distinet being from God. Yet, hadhe 
been so kind as to have quoted the whole verse, 
he might have seen that her was God. “In 
the beginning was the word, and the word was 
with God,and the word was God.” John i—1, 
Secondly, we acknowledge that te mca, 
very frequently imply a distinction in persons, 
but as I have already shown that diversityo f 
persons does not necessarily imply a diversity 
of substances or essences, ‘so his ‘inferenee being. 
not a necessary one, cannot be urged as a. Bett 
~ of the assumed fact. 
And thirdly, ifa few passages are thus to. be’ 
selected from the inspired writers, to show that 
our Sayiourand God the Father are differentand 


a 


’ -THEOLOGY. 137 


- distinet beings, because addressed and spoken 
of as distinct persons, then we may with equal 


‘propriety use his own argument, and prove the 


‘Father to be a distinct person from God; andif | 


.a distinct person from him who is called God, 
and yet God Himself, then there are two persons 
who are called God; and thus his own argument 
proves the plurality of persons in the Godhead. 
“To prove this I will bring some of the very pas- 
sages which he has quoted against us. It is.said, 
“Now God himself, and our Father, and our Lord 
Jesus Christ, desired our way untoyou.’’ 1 Thes, 
iii—11. The same language is used in Gallati- 
ans, i—4: “Who gave himself for our sins, that 
“he might deliver us from this present evil world, 
according to the willfof God, and our Father.” 
Alsoin Philip. iv—20: “Now, unto God, and 
our father, be glory forever and ever.’’ The 
Janguage, therefore, quoted by Mr. Yates to 
prove thatthe Father and the Son are two dis- 
tinct beings as well as persons, must, in the end, 
prove that the God here mentioned was a differ- 
ent person from him who was called the Father ; 
and if different from the Father because the Fa- 
ther is mentioned separately from God, then 
there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, 
and our theory is admitted. 

It may with perfect safety and correctness be 


urged that when it is said that. Jesus Christ in . 


his human person gave himself for our sins “ac- 
cording to the will of God and our Father,” 
the idea intended. was, that the human person 
Jesus Christ gave himself for our sins according 
to the will of the Divine person, or God the Son, 
and God the Father. And the passage before 
-guoted from 1 Thes. iii—11, is to-be interpret: 

»~ 


$e 


~ 


\. ed ina similar manner, “Now God himself, 
ithe Son and our Father, and our Lord Jesus 


Christ the human Hevea Ly 
you.’’. These passages, th 1 
-youring the Unitarian, systen the contrary, 
‘go to establish the Divinity of our Lord and Sa- 
-viour, because had there been, but one person in 
_the Godhead, the word Father immediately after 
‘God. would be altogether improper, without the 
removal of the conjunctive wai. 

The next which he brings i is from. ‘the words 
of St. John, where it is asserted that Jesus Christ 
came from God and went to God.” He ponigha 

~“’That God should come from himself a 
himself is a manifest absurdity. 
sioys, therefore, imply 
terech God and Christ as 


The’ senile hele ‘quoted 
plicable unto the second | 
hut unto the humanity, as ir 
Abe disciples were evide 
our Saviour, and in referen 
nity; for, say they, “No man ca 
racles that thou dost except God 
Neither did he as a man, and 
only, accomplish these .wonde 
from the power of that:Ged whe 
him. , His human: person truly came fee God, 
as all created beings must, in- reference to their 
first origin, and also-returned unto him at his as- 
-cension, that is to God the Father, who had ere- 
ated him. » It must be acknowledged, however 


y ever, i is not ap- 
f.the, Trinity, 
2. 


‘ 


Sy 
14 


- ie, 


a 
| ‘THEOLOGY. 139 


that similar Janguage is applicable unto the Di- 
vine person of our Saviour as well as his human; 
but this is no reasonable objection to our theory, _ 
fared | has frequently expressed himself in six 
milar language, saying, I will go, or I will come, 
-and as God is Oninipresent, this language can 
haye no relation to space whatsoever, therefore 
itis as proper to say I will go to the Father, as 
-for man to-say, that we. must return to our Hea- 
venly Father; because, as he is omnipresent, we 
are as much with him in point of space as we will: 
ever be. For.one person of the Godhead, there- 
fore, to be sent by another, is the same.as being 
manifested by the will of another, and again dis- 
appearing, or, in the language of men, returning 
‘to his former state of invisibility. The mean- 
ing of the passage, therefore, is not that one per- 
-son of God came from and went to himself, but 
that one person came or manifested himself to the 
world according to the will of another person of 
the same Godhead, and in a similar manner re- 
turned or disappeared. And as this was an act 
of our Saviour in his Mediatorial character, it 
would not, asI have before remarked, be degrad- 
ing to his Divinity. 
“Another impor tart objection has been made te 
the Divi ty and coequality of the Son upon the 
suppositi Boia all his miraculous powers and. 
facia ely were derived and. not inher- 
-ent; in proof of which many passages of scrip- 
ture have been quoted, as “All power is given 
unto me in heaven and inearth.’’—Matth. xxviii 
—1i8. Hesays unto his disciples, “All things 
are delivered unto me of my father.??” To the 
Jews ‘he deelares, (John v—19, 36) «Veri- 
auy, verily, dsay unto you, the Son can do 220 
M 


t 


wy 


“6060 ® “ets ea ON 


thing of himself “The 
ther ha given me to fini 
I do, bear witness of m 


sent me.”? And to his ; apos 

of eapbadestye he sa ‘The 

speak unto you, I cheat not of myself; but the 
Father thatdwelleth in me, he’ oet the works.” 
John xiv—10. % 


That this point may be properly aaeied) 
I will here remark, that the faculties of all cre- 


‘ated beings are secondary. and derived, a 


therefore our Saviour in ‘speaking spo ed 
man, and in this light must consider a figesk 


of his powers in a similar light w with those of o- 
ther men, given of God and to bee ployed ‘to 
his glory od our own happiness, Th s, howe- 
ver, is no proof that the essential powers and fa- 
culties of the Deity who was in our Saviour were 
derived. To be sure his *Medistorial powers 
being not essential to Deity might have been de- 


rived or assumed as they really were, iat 


to the will and assent of the other persons of t 
Godhead in union with himself. But this is in 


~ no respect disparaging to his ine person. — — 


All power was given to our Saviour, because he 
was the son of man, and was man; but it was €x- 
ercised. by the fulness of God the Son who was 
in him to whom power was unddr ed. And 
when using the language whic been ascrib- 
gd unto him, saying, “I can of mine own ek 
nothing,” he was undoubtedly speaking in’ 
man person. To govern all things in heat 
and earth is a power which belongs only | to hi 
who is the Lord and maker of them, and th 
fore he is known by thistitle both in the Seri 

and among the heathen, as is particularly men- 


© 


2 
x » | FHEOLOGY.- 2410 


tioned in Rom. ix—5. To ... power over 
death, and to be able to raise the dead is to have 
that power which is proper to God alone. Phil. 
iii—20, and to have power over thesouls of men, 
and have the knowledge of all hearts, belongs te 
God alone. 1 Kings viii—39; Jer. xvii—10. Our ” 
Saviour, therefore, had this power given unto 
him as to his human natare, but inherent as. to 
bis Divine. We are alsc positively informed 
in other passages of the same facts: “Who shalk ~ 
ehange our vile body that it may be fashioned 
like anto his glorious body, according to the 
working w hereby he is able to subdue all things 
_ unto. himself”? Phil. iii—21. And in Colos i— 
19. “Hor it pleased the Father that in him 
should all fulness dwell;?? in other words, it 
leased the Father that in the man Jesus Christ 
the fulness of God the Son should dwell. And 
that. -our Saviour did possess this fulness of God 
may be also further learned from Rom. xo 
“and of whom, as popes sing the flesh, Christ 
eame, who is over all God blessed forevers?? 
which also explains in full the objection which 
I have before noticed, concerning our Saviour’s 
coming from God. For. this passage expressly 
informs us that it was according to the flesh that 
he did come, and if there was nothing more than 
humanity belonging unto him, why was this dis- 
tinction made concerning the flesh in particular? 
The evident intention of the passage is this, “and 
of whom as concerning the flesh Christ (the 
promised Mesiah) came (he being born of one 
of their nation, and so according to the flesh, 
their offspring, even he) who (according to his 
Divine nature) is over all God blessed forever.”’ 
Tn the next place, as Unitarian writers cannot 


* . 7 
; 


r42 j LECTURES éx 


deny but that Dibide honours fave been f 
Jesus Christ, they vi te hace ogee it, 
endeavour to evade the foree of our arguments 
by saying that these ho ere not given him 
on aecount es his Godhead, but because he wes 
the Son of God, the messenger and. agent of the 
Supreme Being. They tell us that our Saviour 
was worthy of | Divine fina only because he 
was the son of a Divine being, and not because 
he possessed a real Divine nature or any of the 
essential attributes of the Deity. «Nothing more 
was necessary to constitute Seth a humaw per- 
son than being the son ofa human person, And . 
if God be a Divine person his own son must be 
a Divine person.’ ‘Worcester’ s Bible News, 
page 135, _ . 
This may indeed be a very plausible hanes 
among the ignorant of evading an aretanest, a 
not among alin of even common understan 
ing and judgnient. Seth could not have been a 
es person without possessing in e rery re- 
spect the fulness of human.nature, let his birth 
or origin be what it may. HI tand the 
intention of the author on this subject, the only 
inference which can be drawn from the manner 
in which he expresses himself is, that sonship2- 
lone,thatis, human sonship, constitutes humanity; 
and if it constitute humanity, it must also con- 
stitute Divinity, without any reference to the 
veal nature or attributes of his person, whether 
these attributes are inherent or sorte: and this. 
is foolishness. I had always supp that the na~ 
ture of a being consisted in the attributes be 
ing to that being, and therefore to cc 
human person human attributes were absol ely 
necessary; and that if any being possessed these,, 


* 


THEOLOGY. 143 


whether born in the usual method or immediate- 
ly created, that he is to be called a human being. 
But if, according to Dr. Worcester’s reasoning, 
humanity consists only in being the Son of hu- 
manity, then we have reason to say that Adam 
was not a human being because he was not the 
son ofa human being. According to his view 
of the subject, it is not humanity which really 
constitutes a human being, nor Divinity which 
constitutes a Divine being, but to be the son of a 
human or Divine being, whether possessing any 
of the attributes of man or God, or those~ of the 
lion and tiger. And therefore upon the*same 
ground, in order to be a ‘clerical person needs 
not that we possess priesthood, but that we ‘are 
the sons of him who does. 

According to all propriety of language, Jesus~ 
Christ could not be truly called a Divine person, . 
and worthy of divine honours, unless he pos- 
sessed a divine nature; neither: could Seth be 
called a human person without possessing the 
same human nature as his father. To be a Di- 
vine being it is absolutcly necessary to be en- 
dowed with the fulness of God; in other words, 
all those attributes and perfections which belong - 
unto God.'. Therefore he must possess Omnipo= 
tence, Omniscence, -Omnipresence, Eternity, - 
Selfexistence.- | 

But it is immediately answered, that’although 
he possessed these, it was by delegation from the 
Father. That our Saviour’s human powers were ~ 
by delegation I admit; and furthermore, that’ 
God the Father delegated -to Christ’s human 
person another Divine person, God the Son, and 
consequently all his attributes; this,* however, 
was the delegation of one nature to another, to 


, iF Ser ee ocala 0 whi 
pleasure, bestowed th, ie m1 


ee 


| “144 LECTURES ON _ 


be in union with it, become oe w 
still ie a 


it. The Divine attribt 
utes of theaiivane person, | he So 
united with a hum ret 

our Saviour said, 
did not intend to ¢ 
human person he po 
human attribute; but th 
nipotent was in him or | 
son, and therefore that by the aic 
tent person within him he coul 
In this sense his attributes \ we 
cause a second person, God the 
him; but in. no other; beea 
Eternity and. -existence a 
legation to one person exce 
is, by the delegation of a ph 
one who is created and finite. — 
ing to our Saviour two 
in. delegation to the ot! 
say, all power is given unt 
_ty could say, my powers 
‘rived, And thus alt difficulty. « ¢ 
entirely. removed.. ree om 
Again we are told, iat ane san of God : 


er that is, as our. 


if this reasoning be true,. any 
kingly honours wha has. reee 
the king'to, do business for 
place. -it-is true that an 
special minister o nation or 
thet nation is considered as. an 


bad 


wage’ =e 
» He 


THEOLOGY. 145 | 


tion and its Hels but this does not make this 
minister or plenipotentiary worthy of all the ho- 
nours of the | or ofits ruler., If such were 
the fact, 3 it mig with equal propriety be said 
that a preacher of the gospel, a minister of God, 
is equally to be honoured with God, for an in- 
sult to a minister of God, when in the line of his 
ministerial duty, is truly an insult to God; but 
this does not make 2 minister equal with God or 
worthy of Divine honours. 

Our authorsays, “The offices of Saviour, Judge, 
and Lord ofall, are as truly divine offices as any 
offices sustait 1ed by God the Father. And if he 
truly possesses these offices by the gift of the Fa- 
ther, so faras official character may be the ground. 
of divine honours, Christ is as worthy of Divine 
honours, as if he had possessed the same offices 

ence.” Therefore, according to this 
system, a mere human, ereated being, subject to 
pain, agony and death, with a finite and limited 
understanding, possessed of all the frailties and 
“imperfections. of man, except sin, is equally to 
e honoured with the Lord of hosts, who filleth 
immensity, whose glory is. beyond the bright-- 
ness of ten thousand suns, and to whom angels 
and arehangels bow submissive. God forbid that 
such a doetrine should be listened fosby Chris- 
tians of the present age; even Heathens would 
shudder at such a character given to their Deities. 
Official character, therefore, i is no ground upon 
which a created being is to be hotioured equally 
with his creator; and no being is to be honour- 
ed as a. Divine being but he who naturally and 
y possesses the essential attributesofGoc, 
That our Saviour was w orthy of honours on ae- 
count. of his offices. I- ‘readily acknowledge, but.. 


a 
¥ 


ae 


& »* - i- bag he 


ae ¢ 
—¥46 LECTURES ON ® 


not of Divine honours. In this point he was ho- 
noured only as a Judge, a Saviour ought to be 
honoured; and he was honoured as God and 
Lord of all the earth, because he wasso. = 
Again it is stated, “The Son of God is worthy 
of Divine honourson the ground of Divine works. 
Creation is a Divine work—and by him were all 
things created. Judging the world is a Divine 
work.” We acknowledge that they are Divine 
works, because authorized by a Divine person, 
God the Father. And our Saviour executed 
these works; but without a Divine nature of his- 
own the execution of the work would no more 
entitle him to Divine honours, than the execu- 
tion of a master’s commands would entitle the 
servant who executed them to the honours of 
his master. The same author argues, that parti- 
eular honours have been paid to hington on 
account of the offices which he held, and the 
works which he performed, and that Christ is 
to be honoured on the same ground: And we 
acknowledge it. But on the same ground it 
must be also acknowledged,. that these works 
were the works of a Divine’ person as much as 
the werks of Washington were his own works 
and not another’s. Washington’s works were 
his own, and not authorized by asuperiou 
er; therefore to make the comparison a 
one we must allow that the works of Christ were. 
not authorized by any other being. a 
ask, do you not honour the Son on aceount his 
offices whether he is a Divine or human bein 
} answer, we honour him on aceo fhis o 
fices and works, and we consider | 
because no man could do ‘these mit 
he did, but. God alone. We do not ase 


, 


“THEOLOGY. £47 


vine honours unto him because he hath done 
these, but because he is a Divine Saviour, a Di- 
vine Judge, and Divine Author of these mira- 
cles. We hoiour him as a Saviour, because he 
isa Saviour, and as a Divine Saviour, because he 
is God. ~ 
' I now proceed to a brief consideration of the- 
eharacter of the Holy Ghost, and the objections- 
whieh have been made to the personality thereof. 
The Holy Spirit isa complex idea composed 
of the simpler ones of being or essence, and 2 
third personality,2s being the third person in the 
Godhead, The interpretation given by Dr. Wor- 
cester, seems to confine the idea to ‘his attributes 
only. “By the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, 
is not in my view intended any one attribute 
merely, but al] those attributes which are impli- 
ed in the fuloess or all sufficiency of the Divine 
Being.” This, however, cannot be a full inter- 
pretation of the meaning of the word, because 
the Holy Spirit is often addressed in the serip- 
tures asa distinct person, and our author’s defi-- 
nition of the word person, is the same as mine- 
which comprehends the idea of an essence as 
well as of intellectual attributes. To be sure Dr. 
Worcester argues that the Holy Spirit cannot 
signify a person, because God speaks of it as his - 
Holy Spirit in the same way that he would say 
my wisdom, my goodness, and it cannot, there< 
fore be a person, because it is said to be God’s- 
Holy Spirit, unless it be also admitted that it is 
his person, and this he thinks is improper. But 
if such was improper, thescriptures are guilty of 
it as well as we, for they speak of a Divine per- 
son as being the person of God, and that our Savi- 
our was the expressimage thereof Therefore, 


* 


_ person can be tempted, wher 


. ther, to direct and assist us in mortifying 


#48 LECTURES en 


if this reasoning were-true, either the lang 
of scripture is improper, or the person of God 
not God. It is consequently no_more imprope 
to say his Holy Spirit than his person, shoe 
fore his Holy Spirit and. his person may, very 
reasonably be one and the same person. In the 
Acts of the Apostles it is said, * e 


ith 3 
have agreed to tempt the Spiri arte Lord? fo 
—9. Now itis folly. peed a, onthe a it é 


rit isa person.. Furthermore it J 
Spirit itself maketh intereession 
Viit—26. Consequently itm 

m the Father, or hi is | att, 
age is always mad Hee i 
other... Again, “And the I Lord sal 
ole not always strive avath eae 
“And it. was. revealed unto hi es 
Ghost that he should not see d 
seen the Lord’s Christ.” Lu —10.. 
Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas 
for the work whereunto have ca 
Acts xilii—2.. Now: the. H yG 
sented in these passages as Secs p 
king intercession, striving, spp er 
other acts; and. with what pro Holy Se hese 
several acts. be aseribed unto the oly Spirits . 
less he is.a distinct person? The n re of - 
Holy Ghost has been sufficiently e yer _ 
former Lecture. His office is to co % 
of their sinfulness and iniquity, to 
minds with the MEI sere | the 


Justs of the flesh.and regenerate our hearts. I 
his influence upon our minds we are comforte 
and look forward with delight to the time whet 


“TE OLOGY. 148 


he shall finally raise us from the dead, to a state 
of immortality and light. 

‘As another objection against the personality of 
the Haly Ghost, Dr. Worcester “says when ycu 
speak of a great outpouring of the spirit of God, 

» do you want to represent that one self-existent 
‘person has made a great outpouring of another 
equal person? Do you not mean that God has 
made a great display of his power, wisdom and 
goodness upon the hearts and minds of men?” 
page 199. Butwhatargumentis this? Foritis 
as improper to speak of the outpouring of a per- 
son’s attributes literally as the outpouring of his 
person. Now our author at once acknowledges 
the outpouring of his attributes, because he ac- 
knowledges that the Divine Spirit consists in his 
attributes. Therefore, if he allows the expres- 
sion to bea figurative one, the outpouring of a 
person is as proper to signify the display of his 
personal powers as the outpouring of his attri- 
butes. 

The same author in his second letter on the 
character of the Holy Spirit, in explaining the 
following passage in the writings of St. Paul “The 
Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, ‘be 
with youall, Amen.” 2 Cor. xiii—14, speaks 
thus: “This passage has often been urged with 
eonfidence, as a proof that there are three self-ex- 
istent persons in God, and that the Holy Spirit 
is one of those persons. But a little attention to 
the natural import of the passage may be suffi- 
cient.to show that neither of these ideas are im- 
plied. The text does not say communion 
with the Holy Ghost, as theugh the Spirit was 
something to be received.” page 204, For my 


cn 


2 
50 ameTuREsen © 


own part I consider the expressions ‘ete 
similar import. When Isay I wish the fe 

-ship of my brother, what is it but to say, I wi 
feliowship or friendship with my brother. 
author says, “We have much said in the serip- 
turcs of the love of God, and also of the love. ca 
-the Son, but what is said wi the love nl Wha 
towards our human race? Nota wo 

saith St. Paul? “Now. e 

for the Lord Jesus Christ? an 
dove of the Spirit, that bh sg wi pS 
-pravers to God for me.”? _T ur 
ae is text, but a abid, 


st hat ‘tip not the love Spirit . 
bere meant, but the love which we hae Fen the, 
Spirit. If this exposition be 
aieht to be ti xeuauen reat 

here he says, “The love of 

“nbt the love which God has 
which you have for him, and this is an a 
all language, especially when said i ium br 
tio. These remarks will be suffici 
thalthere is no real foundation for. ying 
the personality of the Holy Ghost; eee 
trary, the scriptures repeatedly speak ofhim asa 
distinct person of the Godhead, as may be fur~ 
thes een, in John.xv—16, xvi—13 ; Heb. iid 

Cor. ii10. Itis however.acknow: 


thee the Spirit.of God frequently. $e ao 3 


scriptures God himself, an the warmest | 
-Unitarians, particularly by Mr. Yates.  _ ie 
2 


~THEOLOGY: Lod 


i> He; . 
“. 
. 


LECTURE VII. 


& f { ke 
The Designs and Actions of the Godhead. 


GOD is undoubtedly a designing and active 
“being, but-his designs and actions must be con- 
sidered in avery different light from those of 
‘ereated beings, although perhaps the general 
principle may be the same. Every personal be- 
‘ing, in all his designs and doings, whether in time 
orin eternity, hath in view-some particular end 
for which he acts, and our first inquiry relates to 
the nature of that end. As each person of the 
Blessed Trinity is truly God, and possesses wis 
dom, power, goodness, and infinite happiness, 
we cannot but think that the principle, or that 
which in man would be called the moving cause 
of action, must be’the same in each. Manis a 
being in some respects like unto his Creator; he 
possesses power, wisdom, and a place in exis- 
tence, and he derives these, as well as the many 
enjoyments which belong unto him in this life, 
from the Godhead. And when we observe the 
Unbounded goodness, the unerring justice, and 
N ; 


"2332 © LECTURES ON 


‘infinite mercy which is shown unto us, we 
not suppose that the Almighty does all this wi 
out any end in view, but we are led to ask 
_$*What is man that thou art mindful of him, 
the son of man, that thou vyisitest him?” 
what purpose dost thou create and bless a bite 
who only oceupies a speck in mon and Te Is it 
because he deserves such at ntion 2 


or is it for thine own pleasure at 

it be thought that we are not justi ie vein 
ing out any particular. motives or aes 
for the actionsof.the Godhead, it m replied, 


_we do not ask as by way of challeng 
ing the propriety of his actions, but or. 
pose of ascertaining the end ‘of creation, in or 
that we may perceive the reasonableness: 
propriety of his actions, bei hereby le 
mire and adore. — oi 

In speaking of God, whe 
individual person, as bein act 
somewhat similar to that which in mat 
a motive, we only use his own languz 
language of the Scriptures generally. 
ing | tie nature of this principle in th vine 
Being, if we argue from analogy; and we haye 
no other mode of treating these subjects, as it is 
observed even in Revelation, we must acknow- 
ledge that the great end of all his doings in the 
creation of the universe ahd its spiritual inhabit-~ 
ants, is his own pleasure, happiness or glor ‘y. 
some have been Haim get it, and this is ful- 
ly confirmed by his own wo In speaking o} 
the pleasure of God, it will be necessary to 
mark, that I have used the word as —_ 


with happiness. For though it h: 
happened that a distinction bet 


asa Trinit 7 


ut 


‘THEOLOGY. a 53 


been observed in regard to human enjoyments, 
pleasure signifying sensual, and happiness men- 
tal, enjoyments, yet this distinction eannot be re- ~ 
ecived as applicable unto Divine enjoyments, as — 
these are altogether of a spiritual nature. Plea-— 
sure and happiness, therefore, when applied unto 
God, are words ofa similar import. And though 
the word pleasure is sometimes used to signily 
the will of God, yet it retains its original mean- 
ing also as it is used in the ‘Scriptures. For 
whatsoever God accomplishes by his own will 
he also takes a pleasure in accomplishing in some 
sense, or it | never would have been his will to acé 
in this rticular way. God is perfectly happy 
from eternity. “In his ‘presence is fulness of 
joy, Me: at his’ right hand are pleasures forever=" 
Psalm xvi—11. The heaven is his 
rone and the earth his footstool, and strength 
and beauty are in his sanctuary. This i is perfec- 
tion, to be capable of infinite happiness, and this 
itis whieh constitutes the perfection of the Déi= 
tv. In saying that the happiness of the Father, 
the Son and the Holy Ghost was the great end of 
jl] their perfections and actions, I mean only 
at the happiness of each person consists in the 
xercise of their attributes, and in the various” 
odes which are pointed out by his moral per- 
etions. The actions of man frequently arise 
om motives of a similar nature, that is, the end 
‘accomplished in the execution of the act, as 
ay be observed in the pleasures of music, the 
yts of the field, and many other amusements. 
nd as far as the Divine actions can be compared 
human, I presume to say, that this is the best 
2a which we are capable of conceiving con~ 
ing the Divine designs. God created man 


* 


as 


‘3 


i 
i _ towards them, and this is the 


Was brought into ex! 


ee Dheret 


i ver goes, dead a 
Mens 0 pleases r 
“as the xercis toe 
of all ou 


_the pleasure sehich ibe cely 
supporting him. Not th 
any ‘holiness or obedience, even 
ee | perfect, could r 


addition ppiness, for it is in ; 
to be profitable ce yut th 
of the Divine-attrib | y 


was and is af, itself 1 


ion a Mciaants con upor 

are only the effects of those-ac 

ecutes for his own pleasure. 

re, if as St. John saith, he 

“ I these are and were ¢ eated, >? then 
‘that pleasur ie ’ 


ne ore ih we ated is 
plea ich God rocdige in suy 
‘as initted to enjoy th 
either tale r ae , Our gre 


is derived from the 
ties. Powers une 


iselets being produc i 


yments wha’ re ‘na | 


real enjoyment our 
moral or sensual, we hat 


te re know of no other way i ir 
happiness we or can be enjoyed. This 

‘end for which God created 
and continues to manifest his 


any intellectnal being is excited t t 


+ mi 


~ 


_Telates to: 
ee rad 


illy hereafter. 
‘isja being whose happine 
» to conclude that the exe 
nal. Not bomegetl® yo 99 


ta ve ited eit 
vist 1e works of God. _ Atges-in- 
rable had 2 awe said 


’ bere be light,” an a a } allow us 
de that before theereatio ps world 
“was inactive. Wherefore ' w Co 


hath eternally possesse er 
fections or cree a for happi le 


' princip ~ mode o ecising. | 
that his own ivaaas ei t 

ch designs and acco 
1 ha a as s end in views 
ee ae ned th 


God or this - 


ing the events which, 


would be emo ea to pa 


cnowledge to» the accom= 
ee whose existence de- 


on the: ca without | fering 
Son oe 


ae 
THESLOGY. | 
ion whatsoever. Of this 


hes...» | 
mee 
a 

so 


himself, esigns 
must be eternal as his knowle ee 
Sail nae 


we 


ater 


156 LECTURES ON ty, 
there wasatime when he was indeterminate, 
and he who is indeterminate with regard to his 
actions, is so from a want of knowledge upon 
the subjects of his actions. But as God is both — 
Omniscent and immutable, we must believe that 
his designs are eternal: me 

An important and interesting inquiry here a- 
rises: How far do these designs.and decrees .of 
God extend? Or are not all events onenalay 
designed and predetermined by oneor the ot 
of the persons of the Deity? ‘To this I answer: 
The designs of each person of the sacred Trini- 
ty extend to all their own actions and the sub- 
jects thereof. And I think from what hasalrea- 

. dy been said concerning the end of all action, as 
accomplished in the persons of the Godhead,™ 
which is happiness to be obtained or misery to 
be avoided in some shape, it is apparent that be- 
yond these their own actions they have no de- 
signs and execute no deerees whatsoever. And 
as their pleasure eonsists in the exercise of their 
own perfections, no events which are unproduc-— 
tive of pleasure could proceed from them; for no 
intelligent. being can be supposed to have de- 
signed events which were contrary to his de-, 
signs or prejudicial to his in . There ar 
however, no events which do take place in the 
universegwhich are contrary to the willof either — 
of the ‘persons of the Godhead, except the ac~ 
tions of Free Agents, consequently all events 
but those, have been designed and deer by. 
one or the other of the persons-of,the Ge id 
All events but the free exercise of our 
ep proceed from the power and 

od; consequently all human actions 
eomprehended under the exercise of thei: 


at powers, and all events which do not 0 sist 


n this exercise are not, strictly speaking, the 
ee actions of man, but only effects wwhiglfttake 
lace according to the will of God, and which 
exercise of our mental faculties area or 
Our internal ghts and meditation, 
bay ae oe own, ch sequences of these are 
ranked among the events which take place 
the designs and will | oe For ex- 
iple, the determination of 
finger is an act of our own; but t the rise of the 
finger is only an eventswhich takes place accor- 


ding to the laws of God, but which would not 


have taken place had it not been preceded by the 


determination of our minds. The acts of: 


osing, ahr &e. are 


2, Consists in the exercise 
of our chesttal aereeiae ‘and the consequences 
are the events of the Divine designs, and not 


ours. “et in the exercise of our mental 


- faculties in way of willing and deter 
“events” which aah terwards aecomplishe 
his . Our wills are merely the signs 
af allies eo ever vhich God is the es 
one yet as | Go joes: not accomplish. th 
without our wills, their existence is de 
by us, although we are not the efficient ez 
aE 0 actions therefore do notextend alton our- 
ely es, or cause effects distinct from the action 
itself, but are signs-of the- effects which are to 


be accomplished b great author ofallthings. — 


sci 


* 


* bal 


eet oe 
15s p wneronmoN 


But as God does not accomplish ma ings: 
without the exercise of our own powers, eir- 
existence depends upon our own wills; while os 
et ‘not the efficient causes 9) yreey 
God" heing Omnipresent, | aieslichan all: 
things but moral actio hehe an a 
changes which take pla pte 
cept the exercise of the athe Ag 
ereatures. A man is called: a murderer, or is” | 
guilty of murder, not because he has been the 
efficient cause of death, but becduse'the event of 
death took place by his own choice, whether he- 
was the immediate catse‘or not. - The intention. 
and exercise of the wn nlaneeeee 
event.may take ‘place; is for w 
are rewardable or pun 
the efficient cause of this eve 
therefore is punishable for wil \dlepatlichenigdeie 
order that ‘an event may take place, 


owers 
ae is capable ving his 
euted or not. In et man i 
frée agent, that is,. ree to use 


whether thev-prove effectual or not, and-man is | 
free in no other sense. He is not free to eause 
such and such events separate he exereise 

of his mental powers, because all external or 
take place through the power of God, oF NB 
free to exercise his own mindein orde het 
may take place, and for y 
praiseworthy or reprovea ' 

Perhaps it:may be asked, acide we stri 

we never effect?» why do we exefeise our | 
faculties provided that we nevencamipaey 
to succeed? It is useless to-use es 
something can thereby be. 
this, however,.I would answer 


— © 


‘nd 


vite, 


a 


THEOLOGY. - Se 


ertions are not the immediate cause of the events, 
yet this in no manner lessens their usefulness, 
provided the event takes place upon our exer- 
tions. Although the walls of Jericho never 
would have fallen down except upon the blow- 

of the rams horn, yet it was not the sound 
ofthe ‘rams horn that caused them to fall, but 
the very finger of God. The use of this méans; 
therefore, was justas greatas if it had been the very 
eause of the event, ‘although in faet it was not. 
And so our own exertions are just as useful, pro- 
vided that the desired events take place. FE orif 
God always executes upon the cxercise of our 
mental powers, it matters not by whom the ef- 
fect is wrought, if wrought at all. are free 
egents, therefore, not in the production or non- 
drotueliitof external effects, but in the exercise 
of our own personal faculties, and upou which 
God accomplishes or does not accomplish that 
for which we strive. Consequently as E have 
before be all sin consists in’ the exercise 
of our mental faculties, and in which alone con- 
sists obedience or disobedience to the Divine 
command. , 

Another question may now arise. All sis 
and disobedience having been expressly forbid- 
den by the Almighty, could never have been de- 
signed or decreed by him. But as sin and con- 
demnation to misery, are absolutely necessary te 
the exercise of Divine mercy ; for where there is 
no misery nor danger thereof, there can be ne 
deliverance therefrom, wherein consists mercy ; 
does it not follow as an inevitable consequence, 
that sin and every other thing decidedly necessa- 
ry to the exercise of the Divine attributes, and 
the fall accomplishment of his designs, must 


7 
S| P 


w 
k60~ LECTURES ON- 


come to pass through the Divine designs; orren-) 
der him capable of disappointment in his de- 
signs?’ I answer, no more than I am rendered 
capable of disappointment in my designs con-. 
cerning the publishing of this book, because I - 
was not the designer of the printing press, which 
was so necessary to the accomplishment of my~ 
object; and yet no person supposes that any de- 
lay will take place, because the existence of the 
press was not designed by me. Such a pressis ~ 
undoubtedly necessary for the accomplishment- 
of my designs, yet if lam certain thatsuch a ma- 
chine will be ready through the designs of ano- 
ther, this is sufficient forme, It matters not by” 
whom or in what way such a machine is provi- ~ 
ded; if it is really obtained. And though the. 
existence of sin and misery is necessary to the 
exercise of the Divine mercy, and may be made 
use of by the Almighty for the execution of his 
own glorious- purposes, yet itis no more to be’ 
concluded that God decreed its existenee; than I~ 
decreed the building of a printing press because | 
I had determiued to make use of one, If the. 
means are certain, God-ean make use of them~ 
whether they are supplied by his designs or the 
designs of his creatures. We cannot suppose 
that all the sins and iniquities of this world, came 
to pass through the designs of a righteous God... _ 
God hath no pleasure in the existence of sin, but 
his pleasure is in showing mercy on account of 
ut. Rey 
Another question is suggested. If the God-. 
head or particular persons thereof, had, from e-_ 
ternity, designed the exercise of mercy towards ~~ 
mankind, in a way which shall eventually deliv-) 
ethem from the dreadful punishments due to” 


; 


’ 


P 


ww 


r THEOLOGY. — VEL 


“sin, and man had power to avoid sin and conse- 


quently condemnation, without which the ex- 
ercise of mercy could never have been accom- 
plished, had not man power to frustrate the de- 


-signs ‘and decrees of God? I answer no, un- 
Jess it can be proved that truth is falsehood, and 


knowledge ignorance. A reconciliation of this 


“seeming inconsistency is necessary. God know- 


eth all things; sin was to him certain; its exis- 
tence was written down in the book of omnisci- 
ence. From this certainty of Sin originated the 


Divine decrees concerning the exercise of mer- 


ey. Thecertainty of sin, therefore, rendered 


_the execution of his decrees unavoidable, though 


not the necessary consequence of his decrees. 
Sin, therefore, though necessgry to the accom- 
plishment of the Divine designs, was not the ef- 
fect of necessity, any more than the existence of 
a printing press is the consequence of necessity, 
because itis necessary to the execution of my 
own purposes. Sin, therefore, is necessary only 
In one sense, and that is for the exercise of mer- 
cy on account of it, but is not necessary in its 
existence. ‘Yet, as it does exist, the execution 
of the Divine decrees is rendered so certain, that 
no poweris capable of overturning them. But 
suppose it should be asked,-.what would have. 
been the consequence had man always avoided 
sin, which he certainly had power todo? I an- 
swer no designs or decrees concerning the exer- 
cise of mercy could.or would have-existed, and 
where there are no decrees there can be no such 


_ thing as avoiding or frustrating them. But you 


say, the decrees and designs of God concerning 
mercy were made before sin existed; consequent- 
Jy had sin never existed, which it might not, 


» 
d6u ‘LECTURES ON : 
then these decrees might still have been frustrtag | 
ted. I acknowledge that the Divine designs ex- 
isted long before sin, yet not before the certainty 
_ or knowledge of sin: wherefore, if sin was cer- 
tain, though not necessary, the designs and de- 
erees which were formed in a. of this 
certainty, were certain in themselves, and there- 
fore not to be frustrated, because founded in a 
certain knowledge of the truth. For example, 
we will suppose for the present, that it was a 
a known truth that Judas would ay his mas- 
ter, and upon the certainty of this God decreed 
that he should perish, but because Judas had pow- ~ 
er to avoid this sin, it is no argument that he had 
power to frustrate the will of God, unless that 
._power to avoid sin was the real annihilation of 
its certainty, which we know was not the fact. 
‘Thepower.to avoid an .act.is not the power to 
_destroy the Divine knowledge concerning its 
-existence: the Divine knowledge coneernii 
- -our actions does not depend. upon our will, it is 
the act only which is to be accomplished by us, 
but the knowledge of the fact is altogether a dif- 
ferent subject. -If God well knows that ona cer- 
tain day hereafter, I shall preach in St. Paul’s 
church, London, although Iam perfectly igno- 
-rant of the fact; this certainty isin no manner 
lessened because I have power to avoid the act 
by staying at home, or preaching somewhi 
else. The certainty of the truth, whether its re- 
ality is necessary or unnecessary, is sufficient for 
the perfect accomplishment of the designs of 
God which have been founded upon it, concern- 
ing the regeneration and conversion of sinners. 
Theevents, therefore, which take place through 
human agency, and upon which the Divine de- 


= — . s 
a 
. 


* 


THEOLOGY.” | BGS 


as of merey have been founded, though not 
necessary, are nevertheless certain, and the cer- 
tainty of the Divine knowledge renders:the exe- 
cution of hisown-designs as certain and unavoid- 
able as his knowledge. To make void his de- 
signs, therefore, is impossible, without making 
void or false his knowledge, which is also im- 
possible without proving that knowledge is ig- 
norance. And though in committing sin we 
cannot act different from his knowledge, yet this’ 
is no-proof that we cannot act differently from 
what we do; for his: knowledge concerning our. 
actions is founded upon thecertainty of their ex- 
istence, while their existence is founded upon 
our own choice. Thus if it was certain. that 
man would sin,.and.a truth which God foresaw 
from eternity, and therefore had decreed tobe 
“mercifal, then the exercise of the Divine -attri- 
butes:in the accomplishment of his decrees: was 
certain and unavoidable by man; thoughsin might 
have been avoided. Therefore, though man was 
originally capable of avoiding sin, yet the cer- 
tainty that he would not avoid it, rendered it 
impossible for him:to avoid:the execution of the 
divine designs. If we could avoid the fulfilment 
of the divine decrees, we could destroy the-cer- 
tainty of sin, and consequently the Divine Om- 
niseience. But youask, if we can aveid the act 
and existence of sin, cannot we destroy its cer- _ 
tainty also, as its certainty is dependent upon its 
existence? Tvsanswer, there Is no-eeriainty of e- 
vents where»events donot nor will not take. 
place; so, though we afay avoid" those.events; — 
swe destroy no certainty or foreknowledge of 
these, because there is none to be destroyed. 
‘Where there is no certainty of future events 

0 


* 


e 


ae es 


zk 


and by avoiding sin we could ne 


+ is 


an ‘ 
" ynerons on 
“164 LECT Ss ON 


there are no designs formed upon their presup- 
posed on ieees and teow ose no dele to 


esigns of mercy, 
g ot have frustrat- 
ed the designs of mercy, as they would never 
have existed. On _this poin -many people, and 
indeed almost every person w: as meditated 
upon them, are apt to occasion into a gross 
error. They say, supposing God hath eternally 
designed my salvation, have not I who am at) 
per fect liberty to do good or evil, power to over- 
turn that decree by sinning, as no finally.impe- 
nitentsinners are permitted to enter~into the 
kingdom of heaven? Now I would here observe, 
that we have no right to suppose that which is 
impossible or inconsistent with c i : 
By supposing that God hath design 


bly suppose also that it was on account 0. 
ousness of some kind that the Pre “hath 
thus decreed concerning him:. then as. soon as we > 
suppose that God hath made the righteousness of 
this particular. person, or the righteousness of 
Christ imputed to him, thie conditions of his sal- 
vation, and hath thereupon decreed that he shall 
inherit eternal glor y, we immediately. turn and 
suppose that | hath no righteousness, reich. in- 
herent or impu ed, and yet suppose the 
remain nee “ee pitas r false. 


God dcienes his dasa e 
have remained faithful to his: ter, theretied he 
might have avoided the exeeution of the divine — 
decxees, for none but the faithless are damned. ’ 


P= 
os & 4 
THEOLOGY, — 165 
Any person may see the imniprapeicty of ar- 
guing in this manner, ‘because two o wed 
and contradictory propositi sare both re 
ceived as true; it is in the’ 
ed that the =; was founded 
fulness of Ju the second place that it 
might still have exi without his sinfulness, 
which is in tent with the justice of God. 
Though si be certain unto God it is not 
thereby rendered unavoidable unto man. The 
eertainty of any event does not render itan una- 
idable consequence of human nature. Cer- 
ty. and necessity are terms fa ar from being 
synonymous. Ifsuch were the fact, and certain- 
ty alwayssupposed necessity, then.truhy 
‘are necessary, because with God all 
a. Bree agency would pm, eared be a 
r ras belonging to God orman, for 
ible for any intelligent being to act’ 
hen <7 eompels them to act 


another. — ee 
The designs of the G Cis 2 therefore, will 
be ultimately fulfilled; and though sin be so eer- 


tain and so. necessary t the present. lesigns of 
God could not have been accomplished : 


ity yet there isno compulsion i human wil 
neither is sin in any manner inevitable, except 
the sins s of ignorance and original depravity. ©" 


Tt may be thatifthe designs 
eann effec sdfathout sin, it isn 


at once be perceiv- 
determined to preach. 
acertain day in aul’s Church, London, is 
not therefore reasonable to. suppose that this 


ppos-" |, 


1) the sin-- 


to aeppese that he has or-" 
pthis very purpose. The ~ 


Pa 7 ae 


die » ‘ ; 
“166 * eo ON > ' 


an 


a . 7 7 ; . # S 
S chat wos . 


x. | 4 
was the very end for which that’ building*tvas 
planned and raised? brs pe no—the build: 
ers never once thought of your convenience 
when they designed exect 
is not this perfectly applicablesto the Sxistenbe 
of sin? The existence of sin cing foreknown 
and supposed as certain, d has upon the cer- 
tainty thereof determined to he merciful in de- 
livering some from its evil qvences, This, — 
however, is no more proof that sin rakes place — 
through the divine designs than that the above — 
mentioned church was. built from my designs. — 
The certain existence of either, whether arising | 
from one cause or another, is sufficient for the © 
execution of further designs which have been 


formed upon the same. The truth is, that the di- 


vine designs have been formed upon e certain- 
ty of sin, wherefore the certainty and not the 
nécessity of sin was necessary to the full aecom- 
plishment of the divine designs. ‘ 

We see, therefore, that all the designs and de- 


‘erees of God are founded upon his foreknowledge 


of all events which would precede the accom- 
plishment of his designs, though these events 
were In no respects the necessary consequences 
of human nature or the divine will. And weal- 
so perceive that these designs and decrees of the 
Godhead extend only to the actions of the indi- 
vidual persons thereof, and not to the actions of 
any created agents. Neither obedience ne dis 
obedience, therefore, could have been design 
or decreed by the Almighty, forthis wou x lave ; 
taken away the liberty of mam. 
What then are the inevitable consequences of 
this doctrine? They are, firstly, that all the op- 
erations of. nature, arising from: physical or se- 


- ~PHEOLOGY. 167 


edndary causes, were designed and take place ~ 
through the decrees and will of the persons of 
the Trinity, even to the effects and consequences 
of the exercise of our own attributes, which 
sueceed all the actions of which creatures aré 
eapable. Thatthe physical operations of nature 
are the immediate works of God will need no 
further proof or illustration than has been given, 
-as the scriptures fully attest the fact. The ef- 
fects which follow our own actions, and which, 
in common discourse, are denominated, though 
improperly, actions of themselves, are also to’be 
attributed to the same author.’ For example, the 
betraying of our Saviour was an effect which 
followed upon the actions of Judas. God -un- 
doubtedly decreed that Jesus Christ should be 
betrayed, that is, should be delivered into the 
hands of his enemies; this, however, does not~ 
prove that he decreed that Judas should betray 
him. The delivery of our Saviour and the aet 
of which Judas was guilty were altogether dif- 
ferent.» Perhaps it may be thought that this 
distinction, and which I have before explained, 


cannot be mainained. But if such a distinction - 


has never been observed by reasoners before, let ~ 
it henceforth be observed, as it is both correct - 
and important. - As an illustration: I have dis- ~ 
covered a den of robbers; I have also ason.who 
ds well aequainted with the fact, now I send my 
son to that den in order that he may be murder- 
ed; and my-son goes with the same design of be- 
ing murdered; this does in no respect prove that 
they, in committing the: deed, were moved or -- 
actuated by my will and com mand; they commit 
the deed from-thé designs and suggestions of © 


their own minds, and are just as guilty asthough - 


168 


Thad never detignedly my 
and his falling among’ had 
And though I may be considered in} 
pects as preparing or using the me 
son’s death, yet Iam ‘hot : 
called murder; at least, w 
manner lessens the gu 
really guilty of the deed; 
truly caused his son-to be betrayed and 
ed, by sending him intoa world where hek 
that he would be murdere _ and with the vi 
intention that he should 1 
in the scriptures. God k 
exercise his,own mental 
of haying his master betrayed, 
_ should be betrayed and be the 
had contemplated. But the act 
then performed, and. wi crbich Jesus opald 
not have suffered, were’ his own, al 
the effecting cause dont Saviour’s being 
vered up and crucifiedjr"any more than aves 
‘son who blew the ram’s*horn was the effecting 
cause of the fall of the walls’ef Jericho.’ Judas 
- betrayed his master in using those means or 
perfor mide ‘those actions which arr 
ry to his being betrayed, end God produced 
the effect in the same way that he produces»all 
the effects in the order of nature.. AH that we | 
can doin-this life is to use the means to do those 
acts which precede the desired event, and 
God has appointed as proper: tor precede t 
anda that follows is to be deft :tolth 
wisdom of God. . They who used ee 
the destruction of Jericho were not the authors 
of its destruction, neither do they who make use- 
‘of a trumpet cause the “airte: and make- 
@ “7 


a 


| 


: 
3 
{ 


7 


= 
~ 


‘ 3 < 

"seats ’ 169° 
only call. sou , but this) takes 
to the laws of ature, and all e- 
d which take place in the order 
ecording to its laws are. the im- 

orks of God. The exercise of the men: 
‘s- only are to be corisidered the free ac- 
aden: the consequences, such as the sound 
ofa trumpet, or vibration of the air, or fall of 
rd walls are the heme vg on sivine rest 


d 
or 


nature, by siniaiol d = ets. Aman is cal- 
Jed_a suicide, not because he he dies, but be 
performs those actions which precede. sce 
and God isthe author of the effect which follows. 
God is indeed the cause of all effects, whether de- 
ned by himself, i. 
‘ever, does notunake him the eause. of human aec- 
tions. Actions are not to be ranked among the 
common class-of physical effects, but are more: 
properly exertions that effects may be pro dieee. 
The only difference between all ; etts: 
and the EE of Jericho upon ‘the soun ee = 
ing of the ram’s horn, is that one is uncommon ) 
‘and thus called a nga while the others take 
place daily, and so cause no astonishment, altho? 
God is to be considered as much the autos of. 
as ofthe other. Had it been eustomary for . 
the walls of anae fall down upon the sound of 
a tgp pet ey who used the means would have 
considered themselves as much the causevof the 
event, as they were of the sound of the trumpet 
or vibration of the. air, and so they were. 
This distinetion betw. een our sation and. the 


a "2 


a : 


yy mankind; this, how- ihe 


o> 


4 


ae 


170 LECTURES ON 


common events which succeed them according 
'to the law of nature, ought always tobe key ept in 
view, for of ourselves we are al and 
ble of doing any thin; ‘ 
- our mental faculties, and oug 
_as to suppose that any of the < 
sical universe should he comm! 
unless previously directed an i 
Him who is the great sates ofall. 
- A S€tond consequence of fa te is, that 
the future happiness or misery of every individ- 
ing in the universe, is to be vin rena 
thé'Same author of all; but- secondary causes 
as they might be termed, | uman actions, = 
to be attributed only to man. ‘Won this is fou 
ed the doctrine of Election and 


Saat I shelltsenb ind pana aaa ot 


eA Het} 
“ ; nth. fr 
i om is : > ie 
UPR os . sin geri 
t ei > pee me 
1o0hs OK -eekar teiamitas, 
? ; ’ * Ne 
. 1h : a mb ie 
- | ie 4 - bap ¢ 
1 Shseheg 
by a 
| Jestwemgess, 
' e* a _ r 
K, td 
% ’ oe 
he: enn w 
ae Foe hel 


° 


oe  PHEOLOEE: a 


ss 


* Havene considered the designs of God in the 
ereation of man and the dispensations of his pro- 
videnee towards him, as also the great end for 
which he eyer acts, ¢.e. the pleasure which he 
derives or receives in the exercise of his di- 
vine attributes, Iam now led to consider the 
particular nature of man asva being fit and pro- 
per for the exercise of those attributes. hat 
man was created in the image of God, seems to 
be the fag rice of importance contained in 
the divine word, and appears to be the natural 
consequence of the divine nature. As a proof 

' of this it is evident that God would take more 
pleasure inthe creation and support of a bein 
like unto himself than in any other, and because 
there would be a greater field for the exercise of 
the divine attributes in his dispensations towards 
him than could be toan inanimate being. Inan- 
imate beings to be sure have been created, yet 
only in subservience to the promotion of human 
happiness. And as the pleasure of God consists: 
in all probability like the pleasures of man, in 
the exercise of his perfections, the ficld for this 


ae - % | 
: : 
arcise, would be faniitag er towards a beings 


> unto himself, and ea 


ed, consists. in the stmil: of their att 
tan Goi is possessed of Omnipotence, Om- 
_niscience, Omnipresence, Spirituality nd the 
ce, whereby hevis re ect being, and 
ie of infinite happiness. Man, also, posses~\ 
power, wisdom, space, spirituality an¢ 
ed all the known attributes of God, yet in 
limited degree. He possesses power, but not 
power; wisdom, but not all wisdom; existe nee, 
but not an eternalor self- -existence;. an. 
ly perceptible = is, that they power 
is finite and of the other in ptt I 
speaking of the att putes of | 
or thesoul which w 
Without such an 
proper subject for 
tributes, especially ere 
Moral. As a proo 
into consideration the go 
if exercised towards n 


supposes in man. spiri 
For as the divine. ae 5 
readiness to bestow upon his creatures 
gree of happiness, or rather those 
which shall render them capable of 
so he must endow man with the attri 
telligence and spirituality before he 
proper subject of his goodness, as. 
telligent and spiritual beings are capable 
piness. Without some degr ee of knowled 
understanding, our natures would be only 
asenseless lump of matter, incapable of ideas 


sa 


e 3 oPHEOLOGY. 173 


and consequently incapable of pleasure or pain,, 
When we. speak of showing our kindness or 
ess, we evidently mean toa being who is 
possessed of sufficient intelligence to receive and ‘ 
enjoy our kindnesses. The Scriptures inform 
us also that God created us in his own image, 
“and when he had breathed into him the breath 
ef life man became a living soul.’?. This spirit- 
uality is the foundation upon which the likeness 
between God and man chiefly depends; for with-— 
oe this we could possess no other similarity. 
e are indeed of ourselves conscious of possess- 
* ing this spiritual nature, and it is by this that we 
ate rendered eapable of happiness; for had this 
‘never been granted us, the goodness of 
CC never have been exercised towards us; 
for-to say that goodness can be shown te inani- 
mate matter is absurd, unless inanimate matter is 
ae of happiness, which we know is not the 
et. The creation, therefore, of an. intelligent 
and spiritual being of some kind is an inevitable 
consequence of the.divine goodness. Not. that 
“ore of man was thereby rendered neces- 
‘sary, but , ie intelligent being; God might 
have created millions of them without calling i in- 
to existence man. Yet as man seems to ae 
been that particular order of intelligent beings 
which God chose for the exercise of his attri- 
butes, we are to be thankful that such is now 
our situation, that as creatures we are now pos- 
sessed of those qualifications which are necessa- 
ry in the attainment of happiness, and all. this 
through the goodness of our Creator. Astothe 
nature of this spiritual part many and various 
-have been the opinions of philosophers. The 
Epicureans supposed that it consisted in a. very 


subtile fluid) shpat f sw 
_» particles of matter.’ T 
endeavored to” mai 
portion of heavenly 
man and angelic natures. this, howe 
mere conjecture about that of which 
nothing; and it is altogether useless to ‘spend 
our time or talents in formi: scone 
he essentials of spiriepwhile'shauliled’ 
aurdia clay. We know that it is the most 
portant and interesting»part of human ‘na 
and is absolutely necessary in nbaeeret 
fit subjects for the exercise. G 
ness, Justice, or Merey; ‘for. 
speak of dealing justly or mere 
beings of a spiritual nature. a 
man is of a'substanee- aleogsthiondi mme 
the communication between’ the-soul and ‘ecw. 
dy is certainly very intimateand sensible. Whe-) 
ther this Conte stam oe 


pebenea | is a matter of ' very. ‘Titt 
tous and ouglit not to: draw awa 
from matters of far gréater importanee. Our first’ 
ideas are received through’ the medium of the — 
senses, upon the reception’ ‘of which new ideas. 
are again formed by comparing’ my together’ 
and viewing the relations which’ st between 
them. ‘Thus by ‘the power’ of reflection our’ 
minds are continually receiving new ideas, and’ 
our understandings becoming enlarged. | And: 
though reflection is a secondary’ process in’ “the: © 
formation of our ideas, it is neverthi ss far more 

, extensive and fertile than bare sensation. | 
the powers of the imagination, we Pise from 
to step, and from perfection to. psfetion, nt 


} 


THEOLOGY. 175 


the further we-progress the more extensive ap- 
pears t Id for the exercise of our capacities. 
From t apparently unlimited resource of the 
intellectual powers, I think we may safely in- 
fer the immortality of the soul. Ifour existence 
had been limited to threescore years and ten, and 
this world the only theatre of our actions, much 
m limited capacities would have answered all 
our purposes. If this world was our all, it would _ 
only be a source of regret unto us that we pos- 
sessed such powers, capable of anticipating 
worldswhich we could never enjoy, and looking 
forward to such a boundless ocean as that of Im- 
mortality. Were itnot for this enlivening hope, 
this anchor to the soul, we would be carried off 
in the tempest of despair; we would be more 
miserable than even the beasts of the forest; we 
ayould be continually mourning that we had ever 
existed. The idea of annihilation is the most 
horrible that can enter into the human breast. 
It would be better to be a snail and live forever, 
_than a God for threescore years and ten.» Fur- 
rmore, the infinite goodness of God confirms 
e doctrine of the soul’s immortality. We must 
“indeed esteem but very lightly the goodness of 
the Divine. Being, if we can suppose ‘that he 
-wouldibring into existence spirituai and intelli- 
_gent beings, endowing thenrwith almost infinite 
graces, and then, when they had just arrived to 
a knowledge of the beauties of existence and the 
blessings of life, having tasted the pleasures of 
this world, annihilate them forever. And fur- 
thermére, ‘his justice would not allow it. Cot 
cannot be called a being of-perfect justice, unless 
»periect justice is rendered by him to all hiserea- 
tures. In this world we know that such is not 


¥ 


4 76 oo ON 


done. *aReg ahihe a are ¥ 
ty and’ abandoned lives, 1 
God who made them, ; 
wet nd , 


ishments after death,’ a fina Pera of yeu ao 
where each would receive according to the deeds 
done in the boty ete it 
‘dered unto man. . The t f the: 
and the oppressed wou 
neither would we have an} 
‘to induce us to be kind and just: 
Jow beings. Our only motto would be. “Let us 
eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow ve die. 
But as the contrary is our belief,” rmly 
-fonvinced of the immortality of the § soul ‘the ; 
future distribution of j justice to all men, at the fi- _ 
nal bar of God, we have a perfect e for 
‘gulating our lives and conduct accord 
rules of religion and virtue. oe O 
ever, though now clearly and firr 
‘by the gospel, was, before the con ring 
‘viour, a controverted po ‘Ss 
Ammortality “is that which ot 
promise, but do not prove.” ‘S 
his death, said, “I hope to go hence € socie 
ty of good men; but of that I am ‘n t very e i- 
dent; neither doeth it become any wise ma 
‘be positive that’so it will be, =I must n 
and you must live; but which of us is in 
ter state, God only knows.” Such w 
doubts of Socrates, and inde 
philosophers of the primitive 
Christian era. This doctrine; hes 0 


a 


ss 
THEOLOGY. 177 


"fully, oil by. the acndion God himself, as 


’ revealed unto us, in the. gospel. Our. Saviour 
saith, “Fearn - them which kill the body, but 
are not abl kill the soul.”? Matth, x—28, 


“And these shall go away into everlasting pua~ 
-ishment, but the ri hteous into life eternal,’ bs 

Matth.xxv—46. ‘urthermore, St. Paul saith, - 
RS Christ hath, ab shed death, and. hath 

t life and. immortality to light by the gos- 
pel.”” Pi etin. i—10,° It isthe hope ofimmorteli- 
ty which supports us in every situation of life. 
Though friends must separate, yet soon w ill they 
-meet again, t omore. Though riches,and 
honour, and worldly pleasures must all be for- 
saken, still the riches of a life to come are much 
more precious in the eyes of the just, whendeath 
shall confer a crown that never perishes, a flow- 
er that mever fades. Then may we say with 
tranquil minds, “Q death, where is thy sting? O° 

ave, where is thy victory: fhe 

B ‘The next important trait in the character of 
man is his Free Agency. ‘This was a necessary 

| equence of the First Covenant. When man * 
ae originally placed in the garden of Eden, 
appiness was to be obtained thr ough obedien-e, 
and misery through disobedience, ‘Without free 

ency, | erefore, he could obtain. no right to- 
either happiness or misery, and without a right, 
God could not bestow upon him, according to the 
attributes of his justice, the one or the other, 
Consequently without investing man with apow- 
er of choice, or what. is in other words called 
free agency, God could not be to.us a God of 
i Justice: The term free agency may be defined 
aS a power of acting from designs and motiyes of 
hii seereshant restraint either from God 


ee sr | 
1 age a 


ees 


« 
a a 
178 » LECTURES ON i 


er any other being. It is true, God ean, if. he 
sees fit, deprive us of every power of action, and 
guide us into any way that he is pleased to 
point, but not without taking away our free a~ 
gency. As far as we are free we are like unto 
God, possessing a eapability of doing as we 
please without restraint; for as soon as any re- 
’ straint is laid upon us, so faras that restraint ex- 
tends, our free agency is lost. The lawof God, — 
therefore, lays no absolute restraint upon our 
moral conduct, or in the performance of our du- 
ty to God, our fellow beings; or ¢ ourse an as far 
as we haye any liberty; and unless a restrai 

laid upon us by ourselves, we g me 1 S> l sats 
isfaction ofour desires. While free, no 

but that of the will can change our conduct. 

the word law, I understand a mode or +2 
conduct which has been laid down for 

regulation of the course of events’ Nal h take 
place i in the physjcal and moral universe. "That 
which is commonly, though rather improperly, 
called the Law of Nature, is fixed and albsoletie 
The sun, the moon, and the stars; the earth and 


all inanimate creation are guided by d-rules . 
which none but God can alter, and als te 
in every respect agreeably to his will. may 


more properly be called the Law of the Diving 
actions, according to which he governs ge 
nature. The Moral Law or Covenant; 

God and man, is that rule of condu ‘ich th 
Almighty has commanded to be observed 

men, but which he does not enforce, as in the — 
physical world. It is that which he has decla 

to be the most proper for answering the & 

and purposes of his creatures, and such as men 
ought te follow, whether the same be agreeable 


+ 


a in ord uee his creatures to abide: b 


‘promised that it should 
of those enjoyments whi 
rld, mp ics ay 


‘free i in his moral con duct, being. 


to happiness or misery. That m 
_ pable of obedien g ay 


LTS 9 


intentions and designs or not. And 


the existence | laws, | 33 eapability of RS 
disobedience ther which is as ras a. 


Pit disobedience 


among intelligent beings: 


nd the distinetion between 


nt are one fi requentl yas 
istence of law; for ead 


It is.the eat panishment, 
Shale which induces msn te 
r h awe ad dition. 


~ ble, fear also would be impossib! 
no inducement would be held fc 
tae > 


¥ 


ca 


os 


ihr 


‘ g fohari 


* 


Ps > d ; iy F 


‘ i. . P. i 
“180! ‘ LECTURES‘ON = vs 


ae and iniquity. When Adam was -placed in= 
sarden of Eden to till and dress it, we see. 
at God gave unto him laws, promising rewards- . 
ri ceunlaeoe and punish: 3 for disobedience. . 


Both obediénce and diso ice were therefore 
possible; and were it not tice could not 
have been rendered om his Creator, 


because man would had no power to obtain. 

any viet either to happiness or misery. Thet 
ity of doing wrong, therefore, issabso- 

lutely necessary to render us capable of areward. 

for doing right. A person cannot be deserving: 
ore reward for acting by ¢ ape and he. 

pei cannot do wrong is co d 


ion. We see sherelaah ademas er= 
ist be possessed j aatabe: of Ce 
do good or evil, or hee be er | 


~ That this faculty may-be 

necessary that there sho 
stir us up to action. And the pals mo} 
which I am acquainted i is happin to 
-ed or miseryto be avoided. The: a 
are guided by this motive, in ] cforene 
other i is, because there is no other, ¢ 
from apassion which is implant 
nature, and is inherent i reasonable bela 

called Self love This Te given us by © 
our Heayenly Father, is the ee = 
tion inthe human system, and sti irs.up the 
to actions of every kind, whether they i® 
or evil, and which it.is impossible € 
counteraet. To this it is probable that th ee wilk » 
arise in the mands of some meee ofienuaenas Ie: 


ol 


ss oa ‘THEOLOGY. | P 18h 


may be argued by some that self-interest or pri- 
vate happiness isa motive of action highly im- 
proper, and contrary to many of the precepts of 
the bible; that’ instead of being guided by self. 
love, we ought to act from the love of God and 
our fellow beings, for on these two command+ 
ments hang all the law andthe prophets. 
_ In the first place, the term self-interest has’ 
been used very frequently to signify those en- 
jeyments which are obtained and enjoyed in this 
world, such as wealth, honour, sensuality, and 
every carnal pleasure. If self-love or self-inter- 
est comprehends no more than this, it would 
certainly be a yery evil principle, highly. disho- 
nourable and abas!fg, and tending to the worst 
- of evils; and though such a kind of self-love real- 
ly exists, yet itis only partial. Perfect self-love 
‘ comprehends as the object of its exercise every 
enjoyment eitherin time or eternity, and he who 
aets from stich a principle stands a better chance - 
of acting coumgetly an he who acts from a pare 
7 tial principle, or that self-love which is limited 
to the enjoy ments of this world. The only fault. 
among mankind is, that they do not love them- 
selves sufficiently, and this partial self-love being 
imperfect, is the cause ‘of all our evil actions in. 
this world. 

That we ought toact from the love of God and. 
our fellow beings will never be denied, and 
though there may~be various objects of love be- 
side ourselves, yet they become’so from self-lovey: 
or on account of their being subservient to our 
own interestg and happiness. We act from thex 
love of God, because in so doing we promote our 
own happiness, and we love. God only: because. 
he is.the author of our happiness. “We love hii: 


& 


Psa LECTURES" ON 


from gratitude, on account of the individual 
piness whieh we have’ received from: 
the means with which he has supplied us forthe 


attainment of future ha -and glory. “We 
‘love him,” saith the’ay “because he first 
loved us,”? and has manifestec 


care in protecting us among th ¢ hs 
of life. Had we derived no blessings 
promise of any, from our Heavenly Father, we 
would have no more reasén to love'and. serve — 
him than we would the HeathenT . .Asto 
“benevolence, or the love of our: ings, it” 
arises also fromthe same principle. -We love 
them because itis our duty to do so, and we take 
pleasure in doing our duty*to ou or our 
fellow beings. When we see a fellow being 
distress, we reflect that he is a being of the same 
family, formed and governed by the same hand - 
as we oursdlyes: and in reflecting that we our- 
selves -may possibly at some future ~ a be” 
reduced to the same or Similar et een 
feel jt our duty to assist him: sides ‘thi 
haye been taught from our infaney to help: 
poor and needy, knowing“that without t 
sisting our neighbours we have notitheupbemice 
ofthe divine aid; and thatwe may ‘preserve this, 
we are inclined to the performance of our duty: - 
‘Furthermore, society and friendship are 
greatest blessings in ‘this life, and to promote ‘this: ‘ 
we are to promote the good of mankind in| gen+ j 
eral. Therefore, education and the voice.of 
consciences -dictate us in the performance of 
our duty to’our fellow beings, and werdo 
80 our consciences reproach us; wh . a . 
void the reproaches ofa guilty cotiseience, . 
oer duty with pleasure. © pester 


“THEOLOGY: “383 


general, because we love ourselves, knowing 
that the good of the whole is the good of every 
part. And permit me to say that not only all 
our actions, but all our passions, arise from the 
same fountain head. Anger, malice, revenge, 
‘envy, sympathy, andall our passions may be tra- 
eed to self-love. It isa principle as necessary 
to our existence in this world as food and rai- 
ment; and he who leves himself the most will 
serve his God the best; he will be the mgst zeal- 
ous and arduous in the cause of Jesus Christ, and 
‘in the attainment of everlasting glory. And we 
may safely affirm that such isthe Primum Mobile 
of all our aetions; for what should be a motive 
of action but that which offers something benefi- 
cial to the actor? Show me one action of choice 
performed by a rational man which was uncon- 
nected in its origin with self-love, or underived 
from it, and I will acknowledge that my theory 
is false. God himself acts from the same prin- 
eiple. It is for his own pleasure and the enjoy- 
ment of himself in the exercise of his several at- 
tributes that he is induced to be good, benevo- 
lent, just, kind and merciful to the children of 
_ men; and his own word confirms it, wherein he 
informs us that it was for his own pleasure that 
all these are and were created. Are we not per- 
mitted to act from the same or similar. motives ; 
to be kind, benevolent, just and good to our fel- 
low beings on account of having received the 
same kindness from God? Forit is according as 
we do unto others that we shall bedone by. If 
self-love, perfect self-love, be an evil principle, 
God only is to be charged with it, as he is the 
author. But it is not-an evil principle, except 
when it is restrained to partial good. All the ¢- 


Sa ee 


: * 
*. + ¥ 
184. LECTURES ON” 
Vil lies in confining: our self-love to 


good, without ar farther views. Buthe who. 
extends his views andistrives for universal good. 
becomes in’ his actions anove perfect aces, 
whose self-love is only netlels God. ught 
us in his hol rd the: way tn | 

may be satisfied in the most exte 
orin which we may derive the greate 
and had we fellowed that way o' i 
would be far greater than it now is. We ear 
call that an evil: way which-God has appoi 
as the path of our duty; -and the most per! 
mode of satisfying self-love is the way w "i 
leadeth unto life eternal, for which God has giv- 
en us every qualifications: The existenceofsuch — 
2 principle negessarily implies alaw pachagion 
out the mode in which it may. be satisfied iow 
showing also: orhitgandiiilaae events, will follo 

our actions... The motive of the farmer in pla 
ing his grain isthe derivation ofa crop; them 
tive of the Christian in giving due obedience 
the word of Ged is, that he may thereby receive 
the fruits of righteousness, even life eterna But, 
without some law pointing out what efiee 
should follow what causes, what happiness 
actions, free agency would be: ‘peatag? ; 
Such a law, however, divine goodness has seen 
fit to-establish throughout the universe, and the 
great object of all our knowledge is to ascertain 
what that lawis, what those actions, are which — 
will be produetive of our happiness ry. 
Though these. laws determine what 
consequences-of our actions, they do not de 
mine our actions themselves,as they are ou 
but merely show what actions are follow 


what consequences. As before observed, 


- ° ne 
— 
. _* 
- -'PHEOLOGY. 486 


_@re established to give man a motive of action, 


and ‘epoti the Same principle is all civil-as well 


. 
~ 


asmoral law founded. When our -laws_ point 
putan action to be rewarded, we then have some 
acement for pursuing it, and if on the other 
‘show another whicivis to be punished, 
ave a reason for-avoiding it. As to the mo- 
ral’ law, the same is its object. If we foilow af- 
ter righteousness and holiness; it will lead us to 
glory, and this is our motive for-being guided by 
-the principles of Christianity. The moral law, 
| she, “ahaha net to enforce but to gi¥e 
_motives for our actions. Thus, in ali our actigns, 
the first incentive thereunto is the desire of ob- 
taining an additional share of -happines, or .a re- 
dief from’seme pain or impendize evil.. Butper- 
haps aquestion will arise: These motives itis 
said are good motives, and if we always act from 
sod motives, wherein consists sin? -And fur- 
erm God has implanted within us a-de- 
of happiness, and an aversion to pain or mis- 

‘ery, howdo-wesin in being guided by this.prin- 
ciple? The answer'may be anticipated from 
a t has already been said. This pvineiple . of 
_ ‘self-love or-desire after happiness is-a good. 
“perfect motive only: when extended to the eed. 


‘est good possible, and it becomes imperfect: -as 
‘we restrain it to imperfect degrees of happiness. 
Many of our actions which arise from seiflove, 
produce sometimes pain as wells pleasure; this, 
however, is perfectly natural when the good. fo 
beo ed is far the evil. For ex~ 
‘ample, the chief motive to acts of righteousness 
is the promise or expectation of happiness here- 
after, although we know that much pain and trou- 


“ble of mind must be: suffered in the attainment. 


i qsv LECTURES ON ee 


n the conttary, the motive to disobedience and 
sin, is pleasure or happiness as viewed with res- — 
‘pect to this world only, which is very trifling, 
and accompanied» with endless misery. vo 
the happiness for-which we here 
‘so far superior to the pleasures which are deri-. 
| ved from-sin, that, although we do si a few 
years of trouble and disappoint ‘thi 
‘world, it becomes us to pursue the 
4 liness rather than sin, forin so dei 
MW endless misery by suffering that 1 
mentary, and enjoy-endiess pleasures by g 
up those which are no suoner obtained than 
As an example: God planted in the garden of 
‘Eden a tree, whose fruit waspleasant to the eye, — 
and a tree to be desired to make one wise. T ' 
-". * motive which induced Eve to eat thereof, was 
a the desire of knowledge of good and evil, which 
she supposed would add considerably. to p- 
piness; and couid she not have obtaine i 
ver knowledge and gredter happiness b ng 
differently, it would certainly have been a very 
good motive—who does not desire knowledge ? 
‘Yet we perceive that she committed a very 
great crime. Firstly, because sherestrained her 
self-love to less instead of ‘greater happiness, 
: which she might have enjoyed:had she not eat of 
% this forbidden fruit; and secondly, because this 
was a kind of knowledge to which our first pa- 
rents had no right, as God had declared thatin 
. the day in which.she should eat thereof she 
; should surely die. This denunciation of pun- — 
ishment ought to have*been sufficient to have _ 
prevented her from eating of the fruit, although” 
Mg its appearance might have been enticing, ye 
3 


seems, that for want of reflection, she. 


wv pe 


- 


_ THEOLOGY. 187 


sa less to agreater good, and was thus led into er- 
ror; whereas, had she suffered the principle of 
self-love 


would have been her choice. Her con- 
t was sinful because she suffered herself to be 
Jed astray by a partial motive when God had 
commanded her otherwise; and because she sub- 
emitted sites eat evil in order that she might 
obtain so little good; whereas we are not to do 
evil that good may come. Alfhough God has 
planted in this world certain pleasures, and for- 
bade us the enjoy ment of them, unless in appoint- 
ways, yet their existence is necessary to try 
our faith and confidence in our Creator, making 
ivagperehy: capable and prepared for those pure 
unsullied enjoyments which are laid up for 

-us above. Without the existence of forbidden 
pleasures man could not be a-fit subject either 
for rewards or punishments. The only motive 


‘sures. - 


-out an inducement sin would become impossible, 
as we do nothing without some motive. or in- 
‘ducement to action. If temptation and sin were 
impossible, we would deserve no reward from 
-our Creator for resisting it, we eould in no man- 
‘ner take up our cross daiby and follow. Jesus. 
-Perhaps it may be asked, if happiness is all that 
we seek after, how is it that we pursue the way 
which leadeth to misery and death eternal? For 
it is certainly no more than reasonable to sup- 
_pose that-among all rational beings a greater 
good should be preferred toa less, or even to mi- 
sery. But let it-be answered, men do not al- 
ways act reasonably, but on the contrary very 


t 


to have ruled: with perfect sway, the , 


duces man to sin is the forbidden plea- 
low if no pleasures were forbidden © 
there would be no inducements to sin, and with-— 


all 


388 LECTURES, on : 


unreasonably. Though self-love,may excite us 
to deeds which in the end tend to our misery, 
yet it is because we mistake misery for hope 
ness, and not on account of the imperfection of 
the principle. We do not always know what 
will be productive of our rie ig wherefore 
our ignorance often leads us toevil) Variousare 
the reasons which might be given for the con- 
duct of mankind in often,choosing a less to. a 
greater good, or evil rather than good; for evil 
and a less good are often used as synonymous — 
terms, especially when applied to our, moral 
conduct. Drunkenness, profligacy, and all the - 
sinful lusts of the flesh, when considered alone, 
are sources of pleasure to many people, and when — 
compared with other enjoyments,.are properly 
called inferiour degrees of happiness; neverthe- 
less they are evil because they produce misery — 
intheend. It is often the case that any 
apparent and momentary good is set re us, 

~ we do not sufficiently consider its real yalue, or 
the consequences which will arise from’ it, and 
therefore, from our ignorance andearly prejudice | 
we often make an improper choice,though guid- — 
ed by self-iove. And though we perfectly know 
the superiority of some particular courses of life, 
some particular enjoyments to others, yet the 
want of due consideration at the moment, our 
intuitive propensity to sin, the prejudices ofedu-_ 
cation, the influence of habit,and our attachment ~ 
to some particular modes of vice in preference 
to others, all conspire to make us think at the 
moment of our choice that one good will not at 
the least deprive us of the other, and in this way 
we frequently choose the less good; and some- 
times even when we know that our choice will 


bam 


r FHEOLOGY. » i89 


probably be followed by much pain and trouble, 
eur habits and prejudices will overcome reason. 
We are all led to acknowiedge the superiority of 
heayenly to earthly enjoymenits, and did we al- 
ways act reasonably, we would pursue the 
etraight and narrow way which leadeth unto life; 
yet because the pleasures of heavenly-bliss are 


so far distant as we sometimes suppose, and im- 


perceptible to the.carfal eye, they do not make 


the same impression upon our minds; and even . 


when spiritual impressions are made, they are 
easily eradicated, and in this way we are often 
Jed to act unreasonably in preferring the pleas- 
ures of this world to those which are promised 
hereafter. To-act reasonably, is, to act in 
that way which is productive of the greates¢ 
good ; in that way, where self-love may be the 
- most perfectly satisfied, and to act unreasonably 
ts to prefer a less to a greater good. 


» 


Rs. 


€ 


From the nature of man, .as oxitoniinap 

‘Vis lecture, it will be perceived, that alth 
sel love is the first’ principle of action in all spir- 
itual beings, it becomes an active principle only — 
through the existence of certain laws h re: 
gulate the consequences of his actions. For 
without some known laws, pointing out What 
consequences, what happiness or misery shall 
follow our actions, no motive could be raised 
within us sufficient to excite us to the exercise 
of our attributes in any way whatsoever. Thi 
the nature of man, therefore, might be fully” 
fected and made’ capable of answering all the 

ends of the Deity, it was necessary that Ged 
should set before him a certain code of laws ac= 
cording to which the consequences of human ace 
tion should be regulated. ‘This code of laws, ac- 
cording to which the happiness or misery of 
moral creatures is regulated, is what I call a 
Covenant. And when we say that God is | 
God, we intimate as much as that he iny y 
abides by the law which he has originally esta®- 


‘ 5 ‘ + : “ty 
ey rs “De Covenants. Seone | 7 ‘edt 
nt 


-, 


THEOLOGY, 191 


lished. Using the word Covenant in this sefisey 
two have been made with man; the first, that 
which was given to Adam upon his creation, 
and according to the terms of which. salvation 
and misery were and ever shall be regulated, 
The second is that which was also given to Adam 
immediaiely after his fall and condemnation, and 
according to which man remains in his original 
state of reprobation and despair, or obtains a 
Redeemer, a Saviour, who in his own body suf- 
fers the condemnation and punishment of the 
first law, and by obedience restores man to the 
fur of God, and gives hima title to heaven. 
Under this second covenant is comprehended 


both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, the - 


one being a type of. the other. Here it will be 


x 


well to remark that the word diatheke, which ia 
the New Testament is translated covenant, strict 
ly speaking, signifies no more than a dispensa- 
tion, and is viewed in this light by the learned 
Parkhurst in his Dictionary of the New Testa- 
ment; and therefore the language of Paul, partie 
eularly in his Epistle to the Hebrews, concern- 
ing the old and new covenants, relates only to 
the two different dispensations, the Jewish and 


‘Gospel, as comprehended under the new covee 
» nant of grace: - 


The terms of the first covenant are found ree 
corded inthe Peatateuch, as comprehended under 


these words, “And the Lord commanded the 


man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou 
mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the know- 
jedge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: 
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt 
surely die.”? Gen. ii—16, 17. God having pro 


1 


Masud happiness upon obedience to all his insti- - 


‘pw 


492 LECTURES ON © 46) 


a Sek vor 
tutious and ordinances, perfected human oi 
by perfecting | the motive and first prineiple ¢ 
our actions. Mai however, being a free agent 
possessed a power of disob dience, upon the ex- 
ercise of which, God ditealdhied: punishment and. 
eternal misery. The reward of happiness and — 
the punishment of misery, however, although 
the first incentive to action in the human breast, - 
could not have their proper influence without 
reflection; and the want of reflection is the ori- 
gin of disobedience, because our ideas are there- 
by rendered imperfect, and consequent! if 
often led to act from false views. Su 
error of our first parents when they first trans 
gressed the divine law, and became subject t : 
the condemnation denounced in eae 
previously made. And this sentence ot be 
recalled, unless God is an unjust and mutable 

_being. The seals of this covenant were i 
of the knowledge of good and evil, and the 
of life. As longas they partook of the tree of 
life, of which they undoubtedly did partake be- 
fore the fall, they were to live; and upon the 
day. on which they partook of the tree of know- | 
ledge they were to become subject to death, 
natural and spiritual. hing 
While they partook of the tree of life, 
situation must have been truly a happy one, rt 
they were favoured with the presence. of God 
and his holy angels, and were perfectly unac- 
quainted with the miseries and pains which now - 
infest our fallen natures. Universal harmony 
reigned in their hearts, and their delight was i 
the law of the Lord; nevertheless, like all ereat- 
ed beings, they were in some respects imperfect, 


‘because capable of error: eae 


i 


THEOLOGY. : 193 


In this covenant of the Supreme Being, Adam 
acted as our federal head,and we his natural des- 
cendants must be contented in submitting there- 
unto. ae 

The garden of Eden, according to the signi- 
fication of the word, implies a place or state of 
pleasure. The.tree of life in all probability was 
intended as a sign.or emblem of that spiritual 
and happy life which they were to realize so 
long as they retained their purity and innocence, 
and walked in perfect obedience. to the terms of 
the Covenant. The tree of .the knowledge of 
good and evil, was, we find, placed in opposition- 
to the tree of life, and was; consequently, an 
emblem of death, and also infidelity the cause 
thereof. God had expressly forbidden them the 
use of this tree, saying, “in the day that thou eat- 
est thereof thou shalt surely die.”” Satan, howey- 

er, that old serpent, knowing the weaknessof our 
first parents, determined to deceive them. He 
informed them that by tasting of this fruit, they 
should become as Gods, knowing gocd and evil, 
and that death, though threatened, would never 
be inflicted. As knowledge. is desirable in all 
cases, they were pleased with the idea, and, in 
open violation of the word, took of the tree and 
did eat, and immediately their eyes were open- 
ed, and they knew that they had sinned, and hid 
themselves among the trees ofthe garden. They 
could not, however, hide themselves from the 
presence of the Lord, but he appeared unto them 
yn his anger, and condemnation passed from the 
lips of ’an offended God. Death, both natural 
and spiritual became our portion, the, earth was: 
eursed for our sakes, and the flaming sword of 
justice guarded us forever from the tree of lifes 


ter inundates, whirlwinds rend theair, and vol- 


game covenant whieh was given to our first 


- \ a : 4 : 
194 LECTURES ON | 


' Guilt passed: ‘upon all men for the sin of our in 


parents, for in Adam all die. From this one sin 
of Adan proce eded others, until from a connex- 
ion of causes and effects, a habit of and disposi- 
tion to sin became inherent in: all men. Tha 
man is a fallen being, and very far gone from hi 
original state of perfection and: righteousness, 
may be pereeived from his liability to pain, mis- 
ery, ignorance and general depravity; from his — 
Blindness to ever y thing which relates to af 
state, and to his happiness even. in this 
from the curse of toil and labour, which wehi 
to suffer in the attainment of this world’s 's goods; 
from the general rebellion of the brute creation 
i eae us, and the thousands of ‘natural evils 

ich infest this world in general.” ~ The ele+ 
ments-are all at war with man, fire devours, Was 


—~-.S CC 


canoes the earth ; and even these appear insu 


cient: man himself must wage war with his fellow 


being, lest death should be too negligent in his . 

ravages. Sinis now the ruling principle in the | 
hearts of all, to which we are inelined as the 
sparks are to fly upwards.» In the first coven- 
ant perfect obedience was required, and let 
man suppose that life eternal shall ever beo! 
ed without a perfect satisfaction of the law. 


rents is. also binding upon us; it hasnever been — 
repealed, and consequently the promises and — 
threatenings which were there made must bee- 
ventually fulfilled. All men are by nature un- ~ | 
der the sentence of this broken covenant; A- | 
dam’s sin has also become ours beeause he was 

our federal head, and we have now an a 


“disposition and i inclination toxin: “Thea 


¢ 


. 


THEOLOGY.. EES 


rations of men’s hearts are only evil continu- 
ally, “What manis he that liveth and sin- 
neth not??? “The just man falleth seven times 

day.” “The heart of man is deceitful above all 
Mingo desperately wicked.”? “The carnal 


mind is enmity against God: for it is not 


subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be.” Original sin is now “the fault or corrup- 

rof the nature of every man, that naturally 
is engendered ofthe offspring of Adam, whereby 
man is very far gone from originalrighteousness, 
and is of his own nature inelined to evil, so that 
the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, 
and therefore, in every person born into the 
world, itdeserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” 
Art. 9. “It is evident (saith the Rev. J. B. 
Summer) that this doctrine paves the way to the 
whole dispensation of thd Gospel. If mankind 
had not been in a lost state, there would have 
been no need of Christ’s becoming man, or suffer- 
ing death to redeem them.” Paul, in particular, 
endeavoured to impress this doctrine, upon the 
minds of his hearers and followers, in order to 
convince them that regeneration or a new: birth 


was indispensibly necessary to salvation, and he 


gives himself as an example of that corruption: 
‘That which Ido, I allow not; for what I would, 


. that do I not; but what [hate that I do. For 


Y know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth 
no goodthing; for to will is present with me, 
but how to perform that which is good, I 
find not. For the good that I would, I do 
not; but the evil which I would not that I do. 
For I delight in the law of God after the inward- 
man; but I see another law. in my members: 
Warring against the law of my mind, and bring: 


P96 LECTURES ON 


me intocaptivity to the law of sin, which is im’ 
my members.”? We see, therefore, that in trans- 
gressing the law of the first covenant, not only 
our bodies, but our minds, our immortal souls, — 
have become corrupt and subject to all kinds of 
imperfection and consequent woe, We have be- 
come dead in trespasses and sin, we have lost, ia 
agreat measure, the image of God and intercourse 
with him, and which, by our own works, can 
never be restored. Our situation is now such, ~ 
that, even though the sin of Adam should be 
blotted out, perfect obedience hereafter is impos- 
sible. We are daily liable to the sins of igno- 
rance; for heing not at all times acquainted with 
our duty, we may sometimes err, though our mo- 
tives be ever so sincere. Sincerity is not always 
a standard of purity in our actions; Paul was too 
fully convinced of this; for though in persecu- 
ting the Christians, causing them to be stoned, 
put in prison, and sawn assunder, he says that he 
verily thought that he was doing God service, 
he afterwards saw that he was sinning against his 
maker; yet he says he obtained forgiveness, be- 
cause he did it in ignorance andunbelief. 
In this state of reprobation all men are natu- 
rally born; and they who never recover from 
this state are eventually lost in eternal misery. 
They shall at the final day of accounts appear be- 
fore the judgment seat of Christ, and God shalt 
place them upon his left hand, saying, “Depart 
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepar- 
ed for the devil and his angels.” The grave can- 
not hide them from his wrath, but from this 
prison house of clay they shall be called forth 
to everlasting punishment. Tiow fearful then, 
how awful the situation of man: as lying under 


WHEOLOGY. 197 


the curse of the brokén covenant of works, But 
he hath noreason to complain. Justice demands 
punishment, and itis by his own folly that he 
‘hath thus subjected himself toits awful demands, 
A conviction of this is the first step towards a 
recovery. And what blessed intelligence’ must 
it be to mankind that such a recovery is offered; 
that though condemnation surrounds us like the 
waters ofa deluge, we are permitted, in the ark 
of Christ’s holy church, to rise safely above the 
floods, and finally rest upon that celestial mouat 
’ where clouds shall never come, nor storms arise. 
’ The conditions of our salvation and reproba- 
tion having been originally established. in the 
first covenant, cannot be changed or annihilated, 
unless God is a mutable being. «He hath once 
given us the conditions of our everlasting hap- 
piness or misery, and it is contrary to the per- 
fections of his nature to charge them for any 
new conditions. Who then, it may be asked, 
shall be saved? “For we have all become guilty, 
we are all partakers in the disobedience of our 
first parents, and fulfilled the necessary. condi- 
tions of our misery, instead of those which were 
necessary to salvation. This.is the great para- 
dox of the Christian religion, and which I shall 
endeavour to explain in the course of this inqui- 
“ry. God knowing from everlasting the frailty 
of human nature, and the certainty of his fall 
and condemnation, saw proper in his infinite 
goodness to propose a plan which might relieve 
him from the condemnation of the first covenant, 
while justice should still be executed and the 
law satisfied. This was by making a new cove- 
nant of grace. This. covenant of grace, with 
“vespect to its fulfilment, may be divided ingo 


J9s LECTURES ON 


4two parts, the Jewish and Christian economy. 


-The parties of this covenant are the same as in 


the first covenant, God and man. I judge thus 


for many reasons; and firstly, because God, in 


establishing the covenant, either requires condi- 
-tions on the part of man, and whieh are to be 
fulfilled by man, or the scriptures cannot be re- 
lied on as records of truth. It will be recollect- 
ed that this second covenant is not the covenant 
which ensures unto us heaven, but redemption 
through a Saviour. The conditions of our re- 
demption are faith and holiness; and these con- 
ditions are to be accomplished by us and not by 
our Saviour. The scriptures command man 
himself to believe and be baptized for the re- 
mission of sin; and unless believing and being 
baptized, do, in some measure, either directly or 
indirectly, procure this remission, then they are 
useless and vain eeremonies; and if they do pro- 
cure this, then they must certainly be called con- 
ditions of our redemptien, though perhaps not 
-of our future happinessin heaven. The condi- 
tions of our future. happiness are fulfilled by our 


Sayiour; and the second covenant was instituted — 


for the purpose of enabling man to obtain a Sa- 
viour, who should thus satisfy, in his place,.the 
terms of the first covenant, which were the terms 
-of happiness and heaven. If, as some of our Cal- 


-vanistic writers affirm, the parties second — 


-covenant were God the Fatherand the Son, 


then our redemption as wellas future happiness — 


are to us unconditional. And if unconditional, 
then faith and all the requisites of the New Tes- 


tament are useless; because redemption can ve 


obtained as well withoutthem aswiththem. Per- 
dhaps it may be said, that though faith and obe- 


| THEOLOGY. 198 
dience do not obtain either redemption or life 
eternal, yet they are necessary, because com- 
manded; or it is our duty to do them, because 
we are ‘thus’ commanded; but this is no argu- 
ment. For what should excite ts to.do our dus 
ty when nothing is to be gained by it; or‘ why 
should we obey our maker if by so doing we re- 
ceive no good? Why should subjects obey their 
rulers, if they do not gain their protection or es- 
cape some evils? The fact i is, we are bound te 
do nothing but what is recommended by utility. 
‘In all our actions, as Dr. Paley observes, private 

» interest is our motive, and is the foundation of 
all duty, “Whatsoever is expedient is right.’’ 
_Paley’s Moral Philosophy, Chapt. 6.. And if 
‘no benefit is to be derived from our actions, we 
cannot be'said to have neglected our duty in ne- 
glecting them. Therefore, if our faith or obedi- 
-ence tend in no manner, either directly or indi- 
rectly, to procure some good, either here or here- 
-after, we are not bound to comply with them. 
‘In the next place, a covenant between God the 
“Father and the Son, is representing the persons 
of the Godhead as mutable like unto men. The 
nature of the Godhead necessarily requires that 
the persons thereof, should be consistent in all 
their cous and ‘actions ; consequently a cove- 
‘nant between any two persons of the Godhead — 
would be useless and unnecessary. Again, the 
>-scriptures positively inform us that this second 
covenant-was made with man, in particular with 
Abraham. Itis said that ‘Abr raham believed, 
and it was imputed to him for righteousness. 
But how became it imputed to bim for righte- 
-ousness, unless it was the fulfilling of some co- 
wenant? The covenant which then existed wus 


sd 


’ 


: es * 
200 LECTURES. ON 


~ 


¥ 


the same that now exists; and it was theobe> 
dience which Abraham rendered to this cove- 
nant which was imputed to him for righteous- 
ness, although the dispensation under’which he 
served was a different one from the present; the 
one being the type, and theater the atiype . 

The conditions ofthis second covenantare faith 
in the Lord Jesus Christ and its consequent obe- 
dienee; and are offered untoall who enjoy the bles- 
sings of the gospel dispensation. The promise of — 
God, upon the fulfilling of those conditions, was 
thata Saviour, a»Redeemer, should iven 
~as a substitute for those who ‘comp | 
conditions of the second covenant; whoshould : 
them only, satisfy the emand of the first eove-— 
nant, and.thereby enable them to eseape the con- 
demnation whieh had already f ) upon them. 
Man, by disobedience to the conditions of the 
first covenant, became liable to death eternal, but 
God hath said, if you will comply with the con- 
ditions of this second covenant which I am a- 
bout making with you, that misery, which by — 
your works you have deserved, shall ffered — 
by Jesus Christ; and that obedience ¥ ich is 
necessary for the attainment of heaven, shall be — 
performed by him also, and the reward.of his — 
merits shall be applied unto you, evenslife eter- 
nal. No penalty was deus b6it aimeeat disobe- _ 
dience; for they who would not comply with the f 
terms of the new covenant, were by nature in a — 
state of reprobation ; and to. remain in this state — 
was all the penalty that would be necessary. 

The seéond covenant is only the medium 
through which we receive salyationupon the eon- 
ditions of the first covenant ; for without the se- 
cond covenant, our damnation would be inevita- 


THEOLOGY. 20k 


we 
bles because the terms of happiness as stated ia 


the old covenant, could not by us alone be ful- 


_ filled. That weare made inheritors of the king- | 


slom of heaven upon the conditions of the first 
eovenant, bas been denied by many and able wri- 
ters. Tshall, however, endeavour to show that 
their objections are founded neither in reason 
por revel ion ; and that the conditions of tke 
first cove tare still the conditions of life eter- 
nal.. They who object to this doctrine, do it,as 
did De. Whitby, upon the ground of those dec- 


larations made by St. Paul concerning the lawy 
where he says, “Knowing that a man is not jus, 


| tified by the works of the law, but by the faith 
_ of Jesus Christ, even we have believed on Jesus 
: Christ, an ‘not by the works:of the law; forby 
the works of the lav shall no flesh be justified. 38 
Gal. ii—16. “If rig) teousness come by the law, 


then Christ is dead in vain.” “Therefore, by the: 
deeds. of the law, there shall no flesh be justified 


ia his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of 
sin, But now the righteousness of God with- 
out the law is manifested, being witnessed by 
the law and the prophets; even the righteous- 
ness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, un- 
to all and upon all them that believe.” Rom. iii 
—20, 21, 22. Now,say they, to he saved by the 
law, and to be saved by the first covenant, is the 
same; and, consequently, if we are:still saved 
according to the first covenant, then the argu- 


ments of St..Paul are vain and fale: Permit me ~ 


to answer, the law of the first covenant made be- 


tween God and our first parents, and the law con- 
cerning which St. Paul spake, are not the same. 
St. Paul was evidently speaking of the Jewish 
#@r ceremonial law, when sacrifices were offered 


cause of transgressions till the seed shoul 


come.”? Gal. iii—19. It was hot, therefore, the 
law of the first covenant which he meant, but 
that which was added after we |! en the 
first covenant, and because we had broken it. 

And again, it was to continue only until the 
seed shod, and then cease whereas the : 
law_of the first shee still the same. - 


‘Farther, he says, ‘ efore, the law was our — 
sehoolmaste bring us. unto Christ, tha 
might be justified by faith,” The law of. 
first covenant could be no schoolmaster, but 
was the ceremonial law, whieh,» by its sacrifi 
hould £ 


* 
Petits teotel hese, s 
relieve mankind from these type 

ng salvation through the faith of Jesus. 


d burnt offerings; tau 


By 
Christ. — But you ask, is not the law of Moses 
andthe first covenant the same? Not im the 


least. The Mosaic and gospel dispensations aro 
only different parts-of the same covenant of 
grace, one being a type of the other. The second — 
covenant was undoubtedly given to Ada I? 

newed to Abraham, and continued up from: 

thence'to the coming of our Saviour and the 
gospel dispensation. By the ordinances of the” 

dewish law, we do not expect salvation, , 
through the rightcousness which isof fi 
sequently the words of St. Paul having n 
ence to the first covenant, cannot be used a3" 
objection to the doctriae which L am now enadea- 


THEOLOGY. 203 


“youring to The first covenant still 
holds pbets must continue to be subject 

\ an it until it is repealed or its conditions ful- 
filled. That this covenant has been repealed, I, 
or but few will assert. The truth is, it can- 
ek be repealed unless God is unjust. Thecov- 
was made with Adam and A ia 

ty in him, asa federal head, and in -all man- 
¥ied have en it; Consequently all men must 
still be nto it, either in their own per- 
sons or 2 person of Christ. As we all sinned 


' in Adam, we must all have sin fore the 
law was repealed ; and if it was led be- 
_ fore we sinned, then it-eannot be aa 
Dasari. to our use, woless God be unjust 
it w be inconsistent even evi 
to aman from execution by 
law after he had been found guilty. 
~ If then, the first co still holds good, its 
terms must be fulfilled b we can attain h $ 
ven. But we have broken oishmest a cov 
nant now requires both punishment and:o bedi- 
ence from all mankind; punishment, be becauis e 
have all sinned, and obedience, beau itis th 
which we rightfully owe to our Creator. The 
reprobate can only satisfy that part which re- 
quires eed the elect make a perfect and 
full satisfaction both of obedience and punish- 

- meitt; they do not make this satisfaction in their 
own persons, that is, for the demands of the first 
covenant as do the reprobates, but in the person 
of Jesus Christ, who suffers for theirsins and 
renders perfect ‘obedience for their future happi- 


aes Slory. And that map may have that 
coy 


stice 
pealing the 


Teze of satisfyi ing the demands of the first 
sant by a substitute, who s Jesus Christ, a 


**. 


» faith which preserved them from di 


- til they tasted of the tree of death or 


Wi 


204 LECTURES ON - * 


mew covenant has been made, the conditions ef. 
which are faith and repentance ch, ifful- 
filled by man, shall entitle h Redeemer, - 
by whose Test heaven is allt 


The con s both of t and new cove- 
nants term ultimatel faith; our caved | 


performs the faith which was originally require 
of our first parents, and we perform that-whic 
is required as the condition of the enant. 
He who possesses faith is also ob or his 
faith is the only thing which can rh self- 
love excite us to obedience or actions of any kind. _ 
it is evident that the two trees which stood in 
the garden were emblems of faith and ieiaelipr ; 
obedience and disobedience. As long } 
first parents partook of the tree of life, t 


or eating of the forbidden fruit 
ly from death; for to be’ 
bidden fruit and death was t 
was the consequence of the fi 


~ tree of life, therefore, may be ealled the tree of 


faith, and of which our first parents partook un- 


it 
As soon as this happened, the tree ot Ble 
forbidden them; for aman cannot be faithful and 
unfaithful at the same time. It may be thought 
that our first parents never tasted the tree of life, — 
for had they done so, they would have’ Jivegiier- 
ever; but we have nothing in the scriptures to 
supportithis opinion. From the account given 
us in the Scriptures, we may safely infer, that 
the tree of life was always accessible until they 
_ partoo f the tree of the knowledge orga | 
and evil. © And as to the influence whic! 
tree might have upon our first parents, it was aug 


& uf 


a ae ee ey -* Maar Ae tes baa? 


“THEOLOGY. Wiest 05. a 


- = 4 , ‘4 
h lasted dbily. as long as they per- 
uking thereof, that is, while they, 
» “were ina state of trial; and had they persevered 
in, partaking: reof until the end of their trial, we 
’ ite influence would have conti forever afters 
‘ Is not this tree of life, then, a perfect symbol of ) 


Snfluence 


severed 


_ faith? Faith was the condition of life, and infi- 
delity the condition of death, which was sym- 
bolized by the tree of the knowledge of gooa and - 
evil. en man, therefore, had become un- ¥ 
faithful tothe first covenant, justice demanded 
punishment, and no further condition which he 
could perform could be productive of ing ftaie 
happiness. - The sword of justice, therefore, ever’ 
fter, guarded the tree of life, and consequently 
uld never after perform the conditions of 
None but Jesus Christ can do this?” 
ore, in him was held forth to us as 
of our redemption, though it could 
never be perfected by us, as the condition 
, of our fute y. Our Phe: a now becomes 
to us of th me benefit as the treevof life; for 
if we partake of him we shall’ still live forever, 9 


beeatise he has received the tree of lifein our) ~~ 
- And that we may partake of him: who) 


‘fulfils the faith of the first covenant, we muét ful 
fil the faith of the second. © And’ a glorious pri- -~ 
- vilege ought we to consider it, that we may ob- 

i er any manner, since we have, thro” 
ingratitude and disobedience, become unworthy 

of the least blessings. And indeed, haw can we 
behold that-infinite mercy and love, which our 
Saviourhas manifested for sinful man, in taking * 
upon himself the puvishments due fori is, * 

and executing all the demandsvof the 
Want, without exclaiming in raptures, 


iff 


* THEOLOGY. 207 
4 Kuh . ° : HY = 
re ere. ss 

| aa é — . 
- LECTURE x. 


Election and Reprobation. 


- Havive briefly considered the nature of the 


first and second covenants, the subject of Elec- 


tion and Reprobation may now very properly 
claim our attention; as the foundation of either 
is laid upon our obedience or disobedience to 
the first covenant. In this doctrine which has 
been so long the subject of controversy in the 
Christian world, we are taught that “God before 
the foundation of the world was laid, according 
to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the 
secret counsel and good pleasure of his will,’ 
hath chosen some of mankind unto everlasting 
happiness and glory; and according to the same 
counsel of his will, hath ordained others to dis- 
honour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of 
his glorious justice. . “Hath not the potter pow- 
er over the clay of the same lump to make one 
vessel to honour and another to dishonour.?? 
Rom. ix—21. In other words, hath uot God 
power to seleet out of the same mass of human 
beinzs, some persons to happiness and glory, and 
others i@ shame aud misery. God hi a right 


<i 


a 


— 


¢ 


’ fore, is not an unconditio 


to do as he n, conseque 
we hay eno reason ‘for bret ing the propriety 
his ac’ rent to. our hap 

or mis % 


misery, God has no am = 
who are the subjects of his el 
this fitness does not, in the pr 
graded state of man, depend in any 
-on man, yet man has much to do ia 
in order thathe may receive those qualification 
which are necessary to his salvation, while’ 
¢ qualifications for ston ana 
“ytural. 
The peas 13 which are i 
vation are t a and. ne 
obedience to the divine law. Wg arg 
_ cenmot, in nigiepe state, qua himselfi beta, 
“respects, ye may use the raéane @hich 
procure the imputation of these qualifications 
through Jesus Onrist. ‘Thedivine choiee, there~ 


4 


Ri 
1) as 
pe \4 


out foresight of faith and 
kind, although it may be an nditional wit 
God is a God of Justice; and he must, prebierh cw 
render unto every one that which brs his ane 
covenant or law is strictly due. T ; ™ 
of our election and reprobation ¥ et 
to man, but as man by perfor 4 cong x 
ef reprobation, thereby a 
ble of fulfilling the c 

happiness, our clection therer a since i 
been rendered unto ws une 1 
with God; for thoug) 
pariont these conde 


7 oe 3s 


+ 


| <BHEOLOGY. 


2 ve ensure unto us a Redemmer, W ho, 
our pla e, will fulfil the conditions of ow 


tion. These terms, upon the performance or 
non-performance of which depends our election 
- orreprobation, are expressed in the law of the 
first covenant. And though the.divine choice 
or eleet of some to happiness and others to 
eternal torments, might have been made for ages 
infinite befUre man was called into being, yet it 
was made upon the divine foreknowledge of what 


of the conditions required by the law, either by 
imself, or Jesus Christ, his substitute and 

R yer. : ” wy 
The elect have been chosen to life eternal, ast 

. on account of their own merits or deservings, but 
for the merits of Jesus Christ and his rightcous- 
ness only, which has been received as a perfecé 
satisfaction and fulfilment of the--terms of the 
first covenant, forall those wha in their own per- 
sons fulfil the terms of. the, second covenant: 
their election, therefore,,is conditional, although 
the conditions thereof.are not performed by them- 
selves, but by a substitute. The reprobate are 
born such, and. become so, on account of the 
wickedness of our original parents in transgress~ 
ing the divine law, And they who die in this 
state, God hath chosen to damnation, because he 


a the eon place, as relative to the performance 


foresaw th y the descendants of Adam, 
would volunt ainunder the curse which 
was denounced | Adam for his disobedience. 

The rep no ind takes p od; Het 


e to the s oF 
the covenant of grace, but for the sin of our first 
parents. imputed untothem. In them we all die; 
because, being their descendants, we are consi¢- 


wt 


- ie 


gh Ba 


« 


fallitled hy us, bu: this is no proof that reproba- 
mc is unconditional, although it may be so with 


ered as parting with th 
The conditions, upor 


long before we weré called to ©3 it 


was threatened deat nal, ha | oe eae 


not,-therefore, be said that our robation is 

conaitiona send the first, ue nothing is un-— 
conditional whose existence depends u on other 
eireumstances. It is true that these 
may not have been personally and imn 


diately _ 


us. Ali that 1s necessary to our darnnation has 
been performed ‘hy our first parents in Eden. 
We are born under the curse of the. law; and 
there is not a man upon the earth who comes not 
into the world naturally areprobate. And if so, 
the original curse of reprobation, being denounc- 


-ed upon us, not for our own individual sins-in 


this life but for those o first parents, mi must 


consequently be with us unconditional, yet cc con- 


ditional in its origin. For Adam had the 
er.of remaining pure and spotiess; and h 
done-so,’ this curse could never bave been mig! 


. euted either: upon him or us; but as he has sinned, 
‘we are sinners by nature, and are punishable for 
his transgressions: for in Adam all die. To A- 


dam’s sin we have perhaps adde 
and which mov in theend make ot 
tion greater; yet our original sin is suffic 


-seal our reprobation, and which we find aif 


termined long before our birth. eehseg | 
though our reprobation and the reprebation of 
every man born into the world, ‘except our 
parents, was determined before-our birth, 
therefore with us unconditional; we have the 
privilege of abiding by ‘the. consequenees, Or aB- 


ditions - 


é 


4 


THEOLOGY. ~ Qit 


‘caping therefrom, ‘while the consequences are 
executed upon a substitute or Redeemer. So 
that although reprobation is with us uncondition- 
al, to abide by its consequences is, conditional, 
a renders the whole effect the same with us 
as if we still had the same ability as our first pa- 
rents in performing or not performing the terms 


‘of the first covenant. But though we are per- 


mitted to escape the consequences of our origin- 
alreprobation, the sentence must eventually be 
fulfilled upon some person: punishment. must be 


‘ inflicted or Justice can never-be satisfied. This 


sentence must beexecuted either upon the rep=— 
robates themselves, or upon him who has become 
reprobate in their plate and for their sakes. The 
only person who is capable ofreprobationas a sub-. 
stitute for others, is, as I have before observed, 
our Lord Jesus Christ, Those who undergo the 
punishment themselves must be eternally damn- 
ed; and those who by rendering obedience to 
the terms of the second covenant, cast their rep- 
robation on Jesus'Christ as a substitute, are those 
who are denominated the elect. The elect them- 
selves are‘naturally reprobate, but escape dam- 
nation, or the punishment due to them, by cast- 
ing the same upon our Saviour. : 
Having shown the conditions of our reproba- 
tion which have been fulfilled by our first pa-~ 
rents, I proceed to a consideration of the condi- 
tions of our election and salvation. These were’ 
delivered unto Adam in the first covenant, and 
may be briefly comprehended as before obsery- 
ed, under perfect obedience, or in other words, 
faith andits consequences; and which migh& 
have been perfectly and fully observed by our 


first parents, had they made a proper use of their 
s 


‘212 | LECTURES on 
intellectual faculties. But it seems-that ‘tony 
chose rather to fulfil the eonditions of o 
Fobation; and haying done this, were he! 
incapable of, pertain the cor 
necessary toour election. After the fall, 
and obedience to the first promises became im- 
possible, as we had made ourselyes imperfect 
through sin. s Nevertheless faith in the first 
“promises and perfect obedience continue to be 
‘set forth as the only conditions of our salvation; 

- and as we have lost all power of complying with 
these conditions, we cannot hope for salvation, 
unless some one possesses that faith and renders 
that obedience as a substitute in our place, 
and imputes to us the fruits thereof. God the 
Son, or the second person of the blessed Trini- 
ty is the only person who ean do this, and such 
he hath done for a small. part of mankind. He 
it is, who performs the conditions of life eternal, 
those conditions which man once might aiid 
ought to have performed in Eden. He itis who 
is ever partaking of the tree of life, or of faith 
whose fruit is life eternal: And as the conse- 
quences of partaking of the tree of life, are: te 
him useless having life within himself. without 
that which his righteousness has purchased, he 
may apply this reward of righteousness to any 
part of mankind which is worthy of the sa 
by his fulfilment of the conditions of grace. 
to whom this life, procured by our Saviour thro?” 
faith and active righteousness is applied, are the 
same whose reprobation is executed upon the 
man Jesus Christ,and are they who vie eaqerer 

-|y termed the Blect. 
Thus we are elected to salvation pe on 
the account of the obedience to the terms of the 


THEOLOGY. ° Qs 


E ¥irst covenant, which has been rendered by the 
Lord Jesus Christ, aad which man himself ought 

_ to have rendered, but did not.) And weare cho- 
sen to ep istions on account of the disobedi- 
ence and infidelity which man ought to have a- 
voided but did not.“ They who are saved as the 
elect, are saved bythe imputation of their rep- 
robation to the human person of our Redeemer, — 
while the Divine person, or God the Son, im- 
putes his obedience tothem; wherefore they ob- 
tain remission of sin and a title to future rewards 
in heaven, even life eternal. And they who are 
eternally reprobate, such as more frequently in 
the language of theological writers, receive the 
name of reprobates, are those’ who change not 
their natural state, but die under the original 
curse which was denounced upon all mankind. | 
Of ourselves, therefore, as the elect, we perform 
neither the conditions of our salvation, ner suf- 
fer the punishments due to our iniquity. 

In the next place, the conditions of salvation 
whieh are fulfilled by Jesus Christ,” are fulfifted 
only for the elect, and for them only hath Jesus 
Christ suffered the sentence of reprobation, or 

_ performed obedience to-the whole lawi~ The” 
question, therefore, which now presents itself, is, 
if it is for the eleet only that Jesus Christ bath 
performed the conditions of salvation, why doth 
he invite the wicked and reprobate to a partici- 
pation in his merits?» We answer because the 
reprobate themselves have the privilege of be- 
ing made the elect; even they who are finally 
and eternally reprobate are privileged to throw 
_ their iniquities upon the Saviour of men, and be. 
finally numbered among the elect. And this 
' privilege as I have repeatedly remarked, is ob-< 


. * 
% 214 
5 ae 

a ena ive ond covenant. 
we. the conditions of th idkibere ‘He | 
Be of their gan "FS perfe med for them, | 

i punishments exeeuted upiona substit 
Me ie ane, therefore, saved by the meri 


, but we have much to do ne ‘hi 
care his mer Theconditions re- 
taining hi is nar a cere 
fulfilled by w c have no person 
second covenant; 


in’ our place 
“obedi ience can pp 


irist’s applied here. All” 
that he has done, is to fulfilthe terms of the 
first covenant, the conditions of life eternal, for 
which we receive the fruits. And if he does 
this, hae = all we can ask, for it procures ever-— 
lasting glory. And in order that he may do this: 
and thereby number us among the elect, we are | 
to abide by the terms of the second covenant, 
which are faith in the Lord Jesus iat and 
sinctification througilltte Holy Spiri 
It may be asked, if a part of man re * 
ternally reprobate, how can they still have the’ 
privilege of salvation without having the er 
lege of making God’s decree false? Ta 
: as God’s ; decree is founded upon a forekn 
“ odgede ‘hat men ido, andnot upon what 
At, _ are pri ivileged t todo; so the privilege of s 
a ah tion withou the exercise of our powers in the 
Be sid prove thereof, cannot cou 
, decree of ‘réprobation upon the impenitent; and 
if we do improve the privilege offered, th 
cannot still counteract his decree of rep 0 a 
; ‘i because upon those who do improve the talents 2 
‘ given them, no such detree has — : 
and where there is no such deeré 
to be. counteracted. 


ae 


" 


bag AM 


oe 


4 , : ag 
4 i - Rie 


- iP 
With these remarks it will be pereeived that 

ra administration of the new covenant, i 1s given 
te the purpose of introducing sinners into 
members of his body, and this is all 

3 been promised in this covenant, aidieon 
y all that we can obtain thereby, and 


¥ 


complished by our Saviour. 

To be made membersof Christ therefore; and~ 
to be elected to eternal salvation,although the one_ 
unavoidably accompanies the other, a: togeth- 
er different subjects; the foundation of one being” 
our own righteousness of obedience to the second 
covenant, and of the other the righteousness of 
Christ in satisfying the demands of the first cov- 
enant. Ged foreknewing from everlasting 
_ those who by their righteousness would become 
members of Christ, hath elected them to eternai 
salvation; not because they are members of 
@hrist or have faith in his name, but on account 
of the righteousness and faith of Christ as appli- 
ed unto-'them. We are saved by the first cove- 
nant as fulfilled in our Redeemer. This: brings 
me to consider the true meaning of the word re- 
generation. We being the sons and daughters 
of Adam, are made partakers with him of the 

rse which was originally denounced upon him~ 

lhis posterity. We are inheritors of his 
ns and consequently of the punishments due to 
i ‘In the same manner we inherit the right- 
usness of Christ the second Adam, by bein 
made’sons-and daughters of Christ through 
conditions of the second covenant. ‘To be born 
again, therefore, is the privilege which by the 
grace of >. new oflered us, whereby weave: 


‘ #3 


mplished, our election to-life eternal is ac-* 


hs. 


_my creditor relieves 1 me; not how 


Siig 


EE i 


216 LECTURES ox 


. made members or sons of Jésus Christ,» : nd 
pable of inheriting his righteousness 


of our adoption in him, We are adopted. 
the fulfilling of the terms of the second J 
nant, and we are saved through the righ 

e which we inherit through adoption. _ hus 

inheritance which we derive from our 

ond federal head or father Jesus Christ, 7 
and counteracts the effects of. the inheritance 
which we derive from the first Adam, in whom 
all die. It may be thought that if we are elect-- 
ed on account of the righteousness of Christ. 
which we inherit through adoption, and that we. 
becomeadopted and made inheritorsof this right-, 
eousness on account of our own righteousness of 
the second covenant, th: are elected on ac- 
count of our own righteousness, Bat this does, 
not follow. If my creditor casts me into prison. 
for debt, and. by my prayers and penitence a 
friend is obtained who is able and willing to pay 
the debt, then upon:satisfaction made by him, 


count of the value 
but solely forthe s c' 
has rendered for me. To obtain a friend, my 
ewn endeavours are necessary, but this is not 
the act that liberates. To obta 
of sons and daughters of Cl 
fr we can do; this, hoy 
ng the | conditions of 
this is done by Chri 


hag dines made. He hath: paid ine ra 
our liberty and opened the prison doure 
are we-to attribute all our future 


* ‘ 


HEOLOGY.* - QT 


world through the hope of so glorious a pros- 
pect; and to him. are we to give the praise, and. 
not a particle to our own feeble efforts. 8 
We may then see that with us our adoption is 
conditional, while our election is so far uncondi- 
tone that it is not in the least dependent upon’ 
ar actions. But perhaps you will say; if adop- 
uadis to be effected by us, why is not our elee- 


_tion also, as they are inseparable? I answer, the 


inseparability of adoption and election is no ar- 
gument in proof that both are obtained by the 
same means. If, as I have just intimated, the 
procuring of a friend; and my liberation from 
prison, are two circumstances inseparably con= 
nected, yet my endeavours and his are produc- 
tive of very different consequences ; my friend a- 
Tone is the real author of my liberty, while all- 
thatI have done, is to gain his affection. The 
cir¢umstances are the same in our endeavours to 
gain the affections ofa Saviour, and when this is 
done, we have accomplished all in our power— 
the rest is to be fulfilled by him. If our adop- 
tion was unconditional and depended not upon a- 
ny efforts of our own in endeavouring to obtain 
a Saviour’s love and the merits of his s righteous- 
ness; if our faith and holiness have no influ- 
ence in making us members of Christ and sons of 


. the pengge’ peace, God hath violated his word: 


, 


and made himself unjust; for he hath positive- 
ly commanded us to believe and be baptized for 
the remission of sin,.and he who will not com- 
ply withthese terms, are, according to the divine 
word, never to see God. « And if faith and holi- 
ness On our partsare all that are required for our 
adoption, while our-adoption cannot be obtained: 
without them, then I would ask how'can they be 


a z < ee oe 


21s EECTURES OW 


etherwise than conditions thereof? on? 
is obtained altogether upon the terms of the new ‘ 
Govenant, and that it is not obtained throughs 
the merits of Christ, is evident, because he hath 
in no manner performed the conditions of this* 
covenant; for had he performed*the conditions’ ~ 
of the old as well as the new covenant, nothiag* 
would have remained for us to do, and, ‘aoe: 
quently, faith and holiness would be required ' 
in vain. There would be ‘no inducement for a- 
ny one to lead a sober, Hithbous, and godly life’ 
in the present world, for alk the sobriety and~ — 
godliness which has any efféct either in our sal-_ 
vation or adoption, is, according to this system, - 
fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The seriptures,“how- 
ever,every where show the incorrectness of such* 
asystem; for they continually exhort us to a — 
strict observance of all the duties required in the’ 
new testament, and they give us no motives for= 
the observance of these rules but the reward of: 
adoption. ‘ RP 
From what has been said, it may be thought’ 
by some that we are rewarded or punished here- 
after on account of our own merits‘and desery-' 
ings; that our personal piety and holiness are- 
the considerations for which God bestows upon: 
us the blessings of life eternal. Itistrue,thatin, — 
ene sense we are rewarded for our righteous- 
ness in this world, but this reward eonsistsonly) 
in our adoption as sons in Christ Jesus, and aa 
in our future happiness or glory in heaven. T. 
was never intended in the terms of second 
covenant as set forth to usin the Divine word; — 
we may be rewarded hereafter according to 
works and yet not on aceountofthem. 1 
‘each that cur-actions in this world are co 


— ~~ 


py RY, THEOLOGY. BEF 


ed as any further meritorious, - than deueubinas. 
according to the terms of the gospel dispensa- 
tion, the merits ofa Saviour. Our bliss in future” 
existence is’ derived from the meritorious righ 
teausness of him whois King of Kings and Lord 
oPords. If we are righteous according to the 
second Covenant, we shall: at the final day of re- 
tribution be rewarded for. his perfeet obedience 
which: his.love has applied toall those who man- 
ifest their love tohim. And in this sense, the 
reward of adoption isthe reward promised aad 
given for our own actions, while the reward of e~ 
lection and future glory is obtained on account 
of Christ’s righteousness applied to us, or rather 
imputed to us. We are commanded to strive, 
to press forward to the mark; to be instant in 
season and out of season; to-search the scrip- 
tures wherein is revealed the word of truth; to 
fight with all courage putting on the whole ar- 
mour of righteousness; and allfor what?’ In or- 
der that we may on account thereof obtain hea- 


ven? No. These are not the considerations of. 


heaven, but of our adoption, and the conditions 
of heaven are fulfilled by our Saviour Redeemer. 
Heaven. may he the great end which we have 
in view, and so it ought to be in the perform- 
ance of every action which relates to our stand- 
ing with God, but though it is the end for which 
we act it is not. to. be considered the reward of 
our actions, although if may be inharmony with 
the same. All that our righteousness can obtain 
is the right@ousness of Christ; and as we know 
that this when applied unto us, is fully sufficient 


toensure untous the joys of the courts above, 


we have the same inducement to press forward, 


‘ty strive and persevere in the cause of our Re-- 


220 LECTURES ON 
a 


deemer, as though these blessings were obtained” 
as the immediate reward of our faith and holi- 
ness. The wicked are rewarded not only ac- 
cording to, but in part, on account of their sins’ | 
and trangressions of the divine the repro 
these are not the only causes, as their reproba- 
tion was sealed in- Adam; yet if they forsake 
not their evil ways, but unto original sin add the 
sin of disobedience to the New ‘Covenant, and* 
that against all light and knowledge, undoubt- 
edly their punishments will be in intensity ac-— 
cording to their crimes, 5 
In the next place, though our adoption is con- 
ditional, yet, like our Election, it is sure and de-_ 
termined, being fully and perfectly settled he- 
fore the foundation of the world; so sure, that 
like the numbers-of the Eleet and the Reprebate 
which are infallibly decreed from eternity bya 
God who is immutable and changeth’ not from. 
everlasting to everlasting ; its number cannot by 
the agency of manor any chenbeing be increa~ 
sed or diminished. Perhaps will ask, how 
then is our adoption conditional, when all our 
strivings can neither add to nor take from the 
number ?. To this, permit meto answer, that our 
doings were never intended or calculated to add 
to or take from the number of those who have’ 
been adopted or elected, but our doings are the 
foundation upon which that trae number has 
been adopted, (not elected.) Those “per-— 
form the conditions of the gospel are only 
persons who can be adopted, and as the’real num- — 
ber of theseis -well known to the Almighty, 
what inconsistency would there be in saying or 
decreeing that this number only shall be adopted” 
when it is well known that none but they can fi-- 


THEOLOGY. Q3} 


:mally be adopted and be made heirs of his glori- 
ous righteousness; as none but they perform the 
conditions which are required for suchan inher- 
itance? Let it not be supposed however, that 
because God has decreed or predestinated one 
part of mankind to remainin their natural state 
of reprobation, and the other to the adoption of 
sons, that the liberty or privileges of either are 
thereby lessened. A!] have still the privilege 
of performing the conditions necessary to adop- 
tion, and if they improve this privilege they 
shall be saved; not for doing so, but for the right- 
eousness of Christ which being obtained through 
their adoption is applied unto them, and yet 
» without any inconsistency with what has been 

said. Because one man iseternally chosen to a- 
doption, this does not lessen his privilege of re- 

_ Mainiog in astate of reprobation; neither is he 

who is eternally reprobate deprived of the priv- 
ilegeof faith and holiness, and ‘onsequent adop- 
tion and salvation. But you ask how can this 
be? How ean the reprobate, that is, the finally 
reprobate, possess faith andjstill have. the privi- 
lege of heaven when he is already chosen for hell? 
To this it may be replied, he who has been cho- 
sen for bell, has by his own voluntary actions 
laid the foundation of that choice in siu and dis- 
obedience. Hisown choice isthe reason of the 
fos ame ; consequentiyif the choice of God 


s 


has be unded upon human choice, how can 
it affect his liberty, when an act of his liberty 
has been the means of the decree itself. IfGod 
foreknows the cause, he is certainly at liberty. to 
decree the effect, and yet his decree concerning 
the effect has no force in the production of the 
aause. The cause of remaining ina state of. re- 


222 LECTURES ON 


probation is sin, of whi ch n _man is ‘the author} 


‘God therefore, foreseeit n perfect certainty 
a free act of man, may deere: » the consequence, 
which is final reprobation, _ having any 


influence upon man in his © y actions. 


Naturally all men are reprobate, bt 
doomed to continue in that st ny 
own will; on t ie ce 


will not helen nis state 
from eternity hath thereupon determined to pass 
him over as eternally reprobate. ‘No person. 
has the privilege of becoming reprobate, because 
all men are so by nature; but all men have the 
privilege of remaining in, or leaving this state 
of death, and through ‘adoption casting their re-_ 
probation upon our Saviour, and by his righte- 
ousness becoming-one of the Elect. Though the 
finally reprobate person is free to perform the 
conditions of his adoption or of the second cove- 
nant, he is not free to evade) Divine decrees, 
because he is not free to act i n opposition to his 
own determination and will, upon which the ’ 
Divine decrees have been formed. Lest it be 
supposed however, that I hereby render man in- 
capable of altering ‘his determination and choice, 
it will be well to remark, that in all human ac- 
tions we act only in, compliance with our 
and where there is no will there is no ac 
our several motions are guided only 
sion,and may therefore be ealled “passion. 
such cases we are only machines moving as we 
are moved. But in all our aetions we are “9 
erned by our wills, and while e havea wi 
do one way we cannot act differently. Tn crying 
therefore, that man cannot act come’ ar 
own will, 1 meannot that he is incapable of chaa- 


‘THEOLOGY. 223 


ging his will and defermination; but that he is 
ineapable of acting differently from the last des 
termination which he makes, and upon which 
the Divine choice is regulated in sealing our e- 
lection or reprobation. 

- God by the immutability of his own laws ana 
promises, is obliged to predestinate every man, 
toywhom the righteousness of Christ will be ap- 
plied, to a state of happiness. |) So, though our 
own choice determines whether the righteous- 

tess of Christ shall be applied unto us, and conse- 
quently whether we shail be adopted or not, yet 
it is not on account of this choice that we are e- 
lected ‘to life eternal,’but only according to it: He: 
who chooses a life.of wickedness and disobedi- 
ence to the second covenant, is not adopted asa 
member of Christ, on account of his wickedness, 
_and therefore perishes in the state in which he 
was born: and he who chooses faith and holiness 
on account thereof, is made a member of Christ, 
and partakes of his righteousness, and on accou nt: 
of the righteousness of which he partakes, is e- 
lected-to life and’glory. And thus though the fi- 
nal state ofevery man be firmly fixed long before 
his birth, yet it is fixed in perfect harmony with 
the freedom of his own will. ‘But, perhaps some 
will say that if our election or reprobation is 
firmly fixed from everlasting, and all that we'can 
do in endeavoring to change-it cannot make one 
hair white or black, then the apostle has given us 
some very needless advice-In exhorting us to 
make our calling and election sure, for according 
to this system it ts‘sure already, infallibly and, 
unalterably so? Though our election is sure al- 
ready, yet the certainty of Christ’s righteous- 
-hees being hereafter applied unto.us"has made it* 


4, : ’ 


224 LECTURES ON 


so; and the certainty of that application depen 
upon the certainty of our fulfilling the term 

of the second coyenant. Qur actions, therefore, 
in fulfilling the terms of the second covenant are 
absolutely necessary to our adoption, and with- 
out adoption we cannot be saved. T 


called upon to make our calling and election sure, 
we are not called upen to perform the conditions — 
of our election, but to do those things which’ 
shall insure unto us that those conditions shall 
be performed by our Saviour, and the fruits 
thereof applied unto us, Our eleetion may be e- 
ternally sure in the sight of God, but it would 
not. be so unless our adoption is obtained on ac-, 
count of our. own tvorks: our own works fore- 
known of God is the foundation upon which 
our election is sure unto God, though: not the 
conditions thereof... We eannot. be confident 
that heaven is ours unless we are confident of re- 
ceiving themerits of Christ, and we eannot he. 
sure of this unless:we know that we liye a life a- 
grecably to the terms of the second covenant, for 
this reason we are to add to our faith virtue, and 
to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge tempe- 
vance, and to temperance patience,and to patience~ 
godliness, and to godliness.brotherly kindness, — 
and to brotherly kiadness charity. For he who 
perseveres in doing these things may restin firm 
assurance that heaven is his, because Christ has 
purchased it for such. Theadyice of tyes 


is thercfore wecessary to be observed in confirm - 


7 


'SHEOLOSY. 225 


ing us in the hope of everlasting salvation. "Fhe 
freatest difficulty in this matter consists in not 
being enabled to perceive the proper distinction 
between the conditions of our adoption, and the 
eonditions of bliss eternal. - For, perhaps, some 
would say, if weveasnot obtain heaven without 
fulfiiling the second covenant or the conditions of 
our adoption, why are not these also the condi- 
tions of our’salvation? The faliaeyof this, how- 
ever, is apparent to every mind who can proper- 
}¥ distipesish between immediate conditions ard 
#hose which are. secondary and “not ‘connected 
With the subject) The advice of the apostle, itis 
true, would beuseless, provided Ged decreed -the 
actions of all free agents; this, however isnot the 
fact. Though the physical works of nature, and 
the final salvotion or-damnation of souls be the 


_ immediate work of God, vet our actions are our 


own, and may be influenced by advice. Bat if 
every action were decreed of God from everlast- 
ing, then, even were it possible, there would be 
no use in regulating them by advice, for every 
action would be agreeable to his will, whether 
executed: with or without advice, because he 
could not decree an action against his will. How, 
then, it may be asked, could he decree the dam- 
nation of sinners, when we are particularly in- ~ 


_ formed that he is “not willing that any should 


perish, but that all should come to repentance ?™ 
Now in this and many ether similar sentences 


in the scriptures, all that is to be understood is 


this, that it is not through the Divine will or de- 
eree that any man performs those actions or uses 
those means which will be followed by destree- 


_ tion, for God-has, on the contrary, invited him te 


se the means of adoption, and be saved through 


226 LECTURES ON 


the righteousness of Christ. This is the only 
‘construction that can be put upon such passages 
of scripture without. making the word of God in- 
consistent.. To say that it is not his will that fi- 
nally impenitent.sinners should feceive theirdue 
reward, is contrary to eyery sense of scripture. 
Consequently the only interpretation that can be 
admitted is, that God doesnot deeree the ac- 
tions of men, but-only. the consequences thereof, — 
as agreeably to the established laws of nature, 
It is by his will that they who perform acts of 
uarighteousness should perish; but not by. his 
will that-they should perform those acts. Tor 
instance, if it were by the will and deeree of 
God that Eve acted in partaking of theforbidden 
fruit, why did he comimand her. not to eat of it? 
And furthermore, if such was his will.and decree, 
then he punished her for doing his. will, and com- | 
manded her to do contrary to his will.. Now, 
we know that sin is contrary to the will of God, 
and it is inconsistent to suppose that he hath de-. 
erced its existence. And if every action which 
comes to pass. were decreed of God, sueh as mur- 
der, adultery, drunkenness, and the like, then 
we preachers are only opposing the Divine wiil 
and decree when we preach against them, or a-. 
gainst vice and immorality in general. The faet. 
is, if all our actions are decreed of God, then we 
are all doing his holy will, and obeying his sa- 
cred decrees, and shall, consequently all be sa- - 
ved; for none but those who act contrary to the 
Divine will can be damned, wherefore no man 
ean be damned. It is true that man by sinning, 
or acting contrary to the Divine will in one res- 
‘pect, may be in another respect answering his. 
purposes and will. This, however does not make. 


THEOLOGY. 22F 


the act achecstil to the Divine will in that res- 


‘ 


pect wherein it was asin. The actions of men, 
therefore, are free and come to pass only through 
the designs and will of man. All other events 
are decreed of God and take place as that decree 
is accomplished. 

’ From this doctrine, whereby some-are chosen 
to life eternal, and some to everlasting misery, 
on account of the righteousness of Christ or the 
unrighteousness of man, it necessarily follows, 
that both the elect and reprobate will finally per- 
severe in that course of life upon which their e- 
lection or reprobation is founded. This, how= 
ever does not render perseverance inevitable on 
the part of man, it-enly renders it certain. » For 
had not God perceived the certainty of the final 
perseverance of the elect he could net have cho- 


_ senthem as the elect. Not that their perseve- 
_ vance was the condition of their election, yet it 
being the condition of their adoption, mast becer- 
_ tainly foreknown before. God eould make a posi- 


tive choice either in their election or reprobae - 


tion. Bat it will be asked, how perseverance 


can he rendered certain to the elect without be- 
ing necessary. This idea of the inseparability of 
certainty and necessity, has crept into the miads 
of many on account of our limited capacities, and 
the limited field of their exercise. We know of 


- nothing in the world ascertain, unless we receive 
_ it from some neeessary, some immutable law of 


nature or natures’s God, with whieh we are ac- 


_ guainted. We become certain of some particu- 


lar occurrences in the heavens, such as eclipses 
of the sun and the moon, and other planets, be- + 


_ eause we know that according to the established — 


 orcer of nature it must be so; “and for thi$ reason, “ 


228 LECTURES ON 
having always derived our eertaidtly of common | 


and physical events from their necessity, we are: 
led to conclude that such must be the case in the: 


spiritual world. But why should we judge thus?) 
Because we cannot perceive any further in futu-- | 


rity than the necessity of events will permit, be~ 
cause we. cannot-leok into the hearts of men and 
read all. their future actions whieh depend upon’ 
their.own choice, this is no reason for our limi-. 
ting the omniscience of God. God knoweth all, 
things, whether they are to be the consequences: 


of his-own cr human-designs, of course aj] things — 


to him are certain, whether he has ordained them 
or not, or whether they are the: “necessary effects. 
of his predesii ination or not. 

Although it is absolutely certain, that they. 
whom God hath elected to eternal happiness 
through the merits of Christ will finally perse- 
vere in the righteousness of the new Covenant, 
and obtain his merits, and consequently-salvation, 
their liberty to fall is still the same: Butas this- 


Hiberty has no. influence upon his knowledge, it, 


can in no manner Jessen that certainty which he- 
possesses of the final event, as he firmly under- 


d 


stands every event which will come to pass; 


through their liberty. Neither can his khow-. 


ledge influence their liberty or actions, because. — 
as we know not what the propositions of his: 
omniscienze are, we have no power to act con-, 


trary to our own free choice and will, And ~ 


though our actions cannot be different from his- 


knowled: ge, yet we have full power to act differ- — 


ently from what: we do; and the reason is,-be- 
cause his knowledge is always agreeably to our, 
real actions, and notthose whieh might have been. 
erformed. But though I teaeh the certainand. 


ee 


_ |! THEOLOGY. 909 


_ finalperseverance of the adopted and the Alect; 
because none but these who do persevere can 
be adopted or elected; yet:the final perseverance 
of saints is altogether uncertain, and cannot bé 
taught without inconsistency both with reason 

-and the word of God: | To prove this,.it- will be 

“necessary to prove that there can be real and sin 
cere Christians who do not belong to the number 
of the elect, and» consequently: arenot finally. 
saved. Mr. Dickinson says that there is no in- 
stance in the Bible where a man possessing a 
true and lively faith in Jesus Christ, and. is in 

‘favour with-God, has fallen away and eternally 
perished. (Dickinson’s Five Points—Perseve- 
ranee.) I think, however, that I can bring one; 
St. Paul, in his First Epistle to Timothy, partis 
cularly warns him against falling away, but ex- 
horts him that he may. war a good warfare; 
“Holding faith and a good conscience which 
some having put away; concerning faith have 
made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymeneus and 
Aléxander, whom F have delivered unto Satan.” 
Now if Hynveneusand Alexander fell away from 
and made shipwreck ot faith,such a faith as Paul 
was then exhorting’ Timothy to hold fast, it must 
ef course be admitted that such wasa good faith, 
and:that they once possessed it, or they could 
hever have made shipwreck of it... And further, 
if the righteous man cannot fall away, then there 
was no use in giving this advice and warning to- 
Timothy.: 

Again, that the saints may finally apostatize 
and-perish, ! quote a passage from Ezekiel, where 
it is said, “When a righteeus-man turneth away 
from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity,. 
4nd dieth in them, for his iniquity which he hatix 


330 LECTURES OW 


done shall he die.”” Ezek. xviii—26. Whateam- 
be more positive in establishing the fact that) 
saints, or those who are real followers of Jesus — 
Christ, are permitted and have full power to turn 
away from this righteousness, and die impeni-— 
tent. . That the righteous cannot finally turn a-- 
way from their righteousness and perish, is a 
doctrine which denies us the privilege of free 
agents, because it denies us the privilege of sin; - 
and the righteous, therefore, are compelled to be _ 
so, because they cannot be otherwise. We have 
no certainty of the perseverance of any saints but- 
those who belong to the number of the elect; on - 
the contrary, we are certain that none will per-- 
severe but the elect, although there may be other 
Christians who for a time are pious and sincere. — 
The great mistake which prevails in the Cal- 
vinistic system is the idea that all the actions of 
man, whether sinful or praiseworthy, are govern- 
ed and depend upon the deerees of God; where- 
as, the opposite is the truth, that all the decrees 
of God concerning the future rewards and pun- - 
ishments of man are founded upon, 4nd regulated — 
by, the actions of man, as foreknown unto God, 
He hath decreed that some men shall be saved, 
beeause he foreknows that aets‘of righteousness — 
wil] be performed by Christ for some men who 
beeome adopted in Christ; and he has) decreed ~ 
that these shall be adopted, because he has fore- 
known that they would perform the necessary 
conditions of their adoption. He hath also de- 
creed that others shall remain in their» natural - 
state of reprobation, because he hath foreknowm  * 
that it weuld not be their choice to leave it. Ac- 
cording to the Calvinistie system, the foreknow= 
hedge of God is regulated by his deerees’and ac= 


 FHEOLOGY. 33% 


tions. This is the whole point upon whieh the - 
argument turns, They say, how could these e5 
vents be foreknown unless they were decreed? 
Supposing I should ask, how should I foreknow. 
that God will raise. the dead unless I had first de- 
ereed it? ~Would you not think me mad? But - 
you answer, this foreknowledge you possess by 
revelation, and therefore it is no proof that you 
have decreed it. But this is no argument. It 
matters not how that foreknowledge i is received 
by me, whether by revelation or intuition; if I 
possess it, I can decree events which depend up- 
‘on it. If I understand the subject correctly, the 
divine decrees are regulated according to, and- 
founded upon, his foreknowledge, and the scrip- 
tures abundantly confirm the truth of this asser- 
tion. St. Peter, speaking of our Sawiour, says, 
“Him being delivered by the determinate fore- 
knowlede of God.” Acts ii—23. Not being 
foreknown by the determined decrees of God, 
as their system would teach, nor foreknown 
through the election of God as regards the saints; 
but on the contrary, “‘Electaccording to the fore- 
knowledge of God the Father, through sanctifi- 
cation of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinking 
of the blood of Christ.” 1 Pet. i— 2. Now the. 
evident meaning of this sentence is; that God, 
knowing from eternity this sanctification unto: | 
obedience and holiness, and their. consequent, 
preparation by the blood of Christ, did therefore, 
elect them to salvation and life eternal. I think 
if this point was fully understood, and substitut- 
ed in the place of unconditional decrees, that ail 
the cavils concerning this so much controverted 
point would be brought to aclose. According 
to this, our election is just as sure, just as free 


. ae ; 


236 ? —_LEETURES ov 


from a foundation upon our own works of eines 
ousness; the conditions thereof being performed — 
by Christ only, and ‘the decrees of God as firmly” 
established. “The final perseverance of the elect 
is just as certain, and all the seeming difficulties 
concerning free agency totally abolished. To say 
that it-is contrary to the honour of the Deity to 
regulate his decrees aecording to our-actions ‘is 
useless. ‘Fo mike laws and decrees concerning 

the future execution of murderers and: traitors, — 
to issue those decrees on account of the C se 
duct of subjects, is no infringement upon he ho- 
nour of a nation. And beeause Ged forekn 
that man would hecome disobedient, and remain 
ina state of reprobation, it is novia ui veaeonnad 
ble to ‘suppose that God, on account i 


sheuld condemn him to’ eternal misery. V 
these remarks, it will be perceived that, 

ding to the doctrine which I am supper 

is still saved or condemned according to 
isfaction made or not made to’ the” bcp 
first covenant; and though the eonditions of o 
election cannot be fulfilled by us, Rb And 
be fulfilled by our Saviour, as a substi tute in our. 
place, while the punishments of our tae 
are laid upon him in his sufferings: | For his 
righteousness only, therefore, are we saved, and) 
not for our own works or deservings, and we be-. 
come inheritors of his righteousness by obedix — 
ence to the terms of the seeond covenant, uty NA 


% te titty 
balctey Hee AR 
d yf? ‘i ®» 
fi ‘ 7 wash 


eet ee 


: 


‘ 


-SHEOLOGY.: 333 


LECTURE Xf. 


Justification. 


_ IT appears that between God and man two 
Covenants have been established; and the word 
Justification signifies a_judicial act, wherein a 


‘person is accounted as free from the imputation 


of guilt, and a& having preserved a strict adhe-' 
rence to the terms of these covenants. Conse 
quently justification must be double; to be justi- 
fied according to the first covenant is one thing,, 
and to be justified according to the second cove- 
nant is another. hat righteousness which jus- 
tifies us'in the eyes of the first covenant is the 


- righteousness. of Christ only; but.that righteous- 


ness which justifies us in the sight of the second 


_ -is Ourown, and consists in our faith and conse- 


quent obedience, as required in the gospel. This 
was the righteousness which Abraham had, and 
whichentitled him to the promises of the seeond 
covenant, Buta title tothese is not atitleto hea- 
. yen; this'is obtained only through the merits of 


234 2ECTURES ON 


Christ; and this distinetion ought to be ever. ke 

in view. ‘The one is a justification to adoption, 
and the other to life eternal; by our own faith 
and good works we become entitled to the righ- 
teousness of Christ, and by his righteousness to 
the kingdem of heaven. As God cannot be in-- 
consistent with himself, the immutability of his 
nature and his word render it necessary that a 
‘his promises and threatenings should be fulfille 
The penalty of sdisobedience to the first cove- 
nant was death, natural, spiritual, and ene 
and justice demands that it be inflicted. A 

was originally given us to which we ow 
obedience, and which we have neverthele 
luntarily broken. “This person,” as Mr. Faber 
says, ‘‘may have transgressed it in one way, and 
that in another; this in deed, that perhaps only in 
purpose; but every person has transgressed it in 
some shape. Every individual, therefore, de- 
serves punishment, and God, as a just judge, is. 
obliged, (with reverence be it ’ spoken) not indeed — 
by any physical necessity, but by that moral ne- 
cessity which results from the eternal immuta- 
bility of his nature; God is obliged to exact the 
penalty incurred. Were it otherwise, God would 
not be perfectly just, and a God-not perfectly 
just is an imperfect God, which is a contradic- | 
tion in terms.”? My great object then, isto. 
show how justice can be satisfied aceording to. 
the terms of the first covenant, and man still be 
permitted to attain heaven. Justice must be sat-— 
istied, if satisfied at all, in harmony with all the 
other divine attributes, especially his mercy, 
Mercy isan attribute as essential to the divine 
mature, and the accomplishment 0: desi Sy 
sj his justice. He hath determine to deliver 


‘THEOLOGY. © Q35 


afrom all the personal punishments due through 
disobediencé to the first covenant, all those, who, 
upon the performance of the conditions of the 
second covenant, justify themselves unto adop- 
_ tion, or become members of Christ and entitled 
to his merits. The question which immediately 
occurs to the mind of the inquisitive, is this: If 
God, through the exercise of his mercy, pardons 
mankind of the manifold transgressions, and the 
punishments due unto them for their so frequent 
rebellion to his most righteous laws, and on ac- 
count of which he has already denounced eter- 
_haldeath, what becomes of his justice? How 
shall he preserve inviolate this attribute at the ve- 
ry time that he is pardoning -those whom strict 
justice would condemn? If we suppose God ~ 
_ perfectly just, we must also suppose that the pen- 
_alty of the law will be exacted to the utmost far- 
4 ae The coming of our Saviour has in no man- 
ner destroyed the efficacy of the law of the first 
‘covenant, unless it has made Ged unjust; for he 
who does not perfectly accomplish his own pro- 
mises and threatenings to the satisfaction of the 
_ law, is unjust. No exceptions can be admitted 
i unless we have positive mont of the same by the 
_ word. itself, whereas in the word we find none. 
|The coming of our Saviour, instead of annulling 
! ‘the law, has fully established it. He has there- 
| by shown that he will never suffer the least sin 
tog go unpunished. But you ask, how then caa 
“God be merciful if sin never goes unpunished ? 
"does not mercy and pardon at once suppose that 
the punishment due to sinis withheld? To this 
let it be.answered, the mercy of God as shown 
nto man, does not consist in recalling the sen- 
| tence which has been pronounced upon him. God 
Wy 


236 LECTURES ON 


o bgas, 
js immutable : that which he hath once said mu 
be fully accomplished, for he is a God that ec: 
not repent, neither can his } justice fail; he . 
fully render according to their works. But mercy, } 
as exercised by the divine goodness towards man, — 
consists in consenting upon certain new Ps a 
tions to inflict the punishment which 
unto him upon a being who was not the ede 
er, but of his own will consented to becomea 
substitute in place of the offender. Justice might 
have been satisfied upon man himself, yet divine 
mercy agreed to receive a substitute, provided 
man would have faith in him. In this way, an 
I presume to say in nother which would be con= 
sistent with the divine attributes, psi pate ig 
tice and his mercy. may be exercised. 
ishments due to our iniquities may” be fu 
flicted upon a substitute while. we ay 
But you ask, would it not be injustice to punish - 
aninnocent person and let the guilty go free? — 
Certainly it would, unless the person sufferi 
freely and willingly offers himself as a substitute — 
for the guilty, and is at perfect liberty to suffer j 
or not to suffer in his place; yet, if it be his own ~ 
desire and will to become a substitute, and a= 
greeable to the designs and purposes of God that — 
he should do so, and all the ends of the law may 
be fully answered thereby; then there can be 
nothing contrary to the strictest rules of equity ‘| 
and righteousness i in pursuing sach a method in, 
satisfying the demands of the first covetiant a8 
relative to punishment. Ifa man by his trans- 
gressions, has, according to the law against which 


he rebelled, received sentence of ot aspen 
r 


— ee ey 


and perceives any adequate means of dispo f? 
that sentence, means which will answer every 


tes ‘ 


ae . 


| THEOLOGY. t 237 


end and inidaaen of the law and ‘fulfil i de- 
mands of justice, certainly we have no reason to 
charge the Saviour with injustice for consenting 
Ss such an act; we would rather charge him with 

justice, or at least a want of goodness, in not - 
siscntive to it. Justice is satisfied whenever 
_the ends of the law are fully answered. It is now, 
therefore, our business to prove that all the ends 
of the law of the first covenant as instituted be-. 
tween God and man, may be perfectly answered 
by accepting a substitute to suffer in the place of 
tan, wherefore we are now brought to the in- 
-quiry : for what end did God originally give un- 
to mana law?» Perhaps some may answer, that. 
“man might be profitted thereby ; this is the end 
for which civil law is instituted; that by the 
: threatenings of punishment for disobedience, an 
inducement may be held out, by which, men, 
through fear of misery, might be led to avoid all 
disobedience, and walk in that way which is 
most beneficial to society and individuals. That 
this was one end for which our heavenly Father 
hath given unto us a law, they think is evident 
from his attribute of goodness. For God being 
a kind disposition towards his creatures, would 
aturally in order to render them more capable 
f happiness, and to inspire them with a motive 
r pursuing it, threaten punishment for disobe- 
jience, and pithout a law man would have been 
ncapable of rewards:’ They would argue that 
“the end of the law, therefore, was to display the 
goodness of God in ordaining such rules as should 
be most beneficial to mankind. This, however, 
ies! be the original and primary end of the 


uw of the first covenant, although these purpo- 
es thereby may be answered. It is very true 


- 


238 LECTURES ON 


that in giving us such a law, God manifested his: 
goodness to a superior degree, because he made 
us-capable of happiness by performing its condi 
tions. But God could have made us-capable of 
happiness in hundreds of ways beside this. His: 
goodness would have been as gloriously mani- 

fested had he given us happiness without a law 

as with one; to manifest his goodness, therefore, 
was not the reason why he chose to do it in this: 


particular way. What then was the end which 


induced him to show forth his goodness through’ 
the means of justice, or according to a law,in pre- 
ference to anv other way? The answer is, in 


erder that he might show forth his mercy also as ~ 


well us his justice and goodness. Wherethere is- 
no law there can be no merey, for mercy consists 
in delivering from evil, or the punishment due to 
sin; and, as sin could not exist without a law, 
neither could mercy. The exercise of mercy, 
therefore, was the great end for which God chose 
to exercise his justice with his goodness, that is 
to give unto manalaw. And if the substitution 
of an innocent person in the place of the guilty 
could promote the exercise of divine mercy, 
then it could answer the great and chief end of 
the law. In the next place, if God chose to be 


just in order that he might be merciful, there is — 


no other way in which the end of the law could 
be answered than by receiving a substitute in the 
place of the offender, because there is no other 
way in which the law can be executed’with mer-/ 
cy. For if the law is executed upon the erim- 
inal himself, then mercy is impossible; and ifthe 
law is not executed at all, then justice is impossi- 
ble; for justice consists in executing the law, or 
causing the demands of the law to be satisfied. 


j 


Zz 


THEOLOGY. — 239 


Consequently, if the primary end of the law isthe 
exercise of mercy, then it must he executed up- 
ona substitute or it cannot answer its end. 

In the next place, the substitution of our Sa- 
viour in the place of sinful man, is the only way 
in which man can now answer his own ends. 
The only end for which he acts is happiness; but 
happiness, that is heavenly -bliss, is impossible, 
provided the sentenceof the law is executed up- 
on himself; but #f executed upon a substitute, his 
end may still be obtained. ‘The only way, there- 
fore, in which theends of*the law could be an- 
_ swered, is, by ‘the decree of the Almighty to re- 
ceive a substitute in case that man should trans- 
gress, which God well knew would be the event, 
and in placing upon this substitute the punish- 
ments due to all. And such must have'been the 
design of the Almighty frometernity ; for with- 
out the promise of asubstitute to- receive this 
punishment, he knew, that man haying once dis- 
obeyed, woukl have no further motive to obedi- 
ence. For, were the sentence of eterna}damna- 
tion to be inflicted wpon all men, which certain- 
ly must have been the event without the prom- 
ise of a substitute, what inducement could there 
be to refrain from sin? If our destruction was 
certain, what motive could there be for future o- 
bedience ? No blessings to be gained, no re- 
-wards for our labours, death and everlasting mis 
ery would be our only portion. Instead of obe- 
dience we would-be rather inclined to disobedi- 
ence, to enjoy this world tothe full extent of our 
natural desires and dispositions. For as this 
_ world would be our all, it would. be no more than 
reasonable to suppose that we should make the 
Best of it. Consequently, if no-substitute was t> 


Y 


240 LECTURES @N 


be provided, we would have no further. indute~ 
ments to avid sin, for we know that at the best 
we are but sinners, and cannot at all times es- 
cape error, which would render all endeavours 
as well as laws entirely useless. But according 
to that system which teaches that no new cove- 
nant has been made with man as a party, who is 
to perform certain conditiens therein required, 
moral laws are still useless, and there is even 
now no inducement to avoid sin. No blessings — 
are promised him for so doing, neither those of a- 
doption nor eternal life, consequently man is 
now deprived of free agency, because deprived — 
of a motive ofaction. Wesee, therefore, the ne- 
eessity ofa second covenant between God and — 
man for the purpose of giving man a motive to 
future faith and holiness. A substitute is prem- 
ised upon these conditions, and unless he fulfils 
them he never receives the promise. 

With these remarks, it will be seen that the 
substitution of some other being in the place of 
sinful man, not only answers the ends of the law 
oH rendering mercy possible, but has its proper 
effects upon man through the conditions ef the 
second covenant, of giving to hin»a metive of fu- 
ture faith in Jesus Christ and consequent obedi- — 
ence; and this is the only way in which the © 
purposes of God can be fully aecomplished. And — 
without the promise of such a substitute to suf- — 
fer in our stead, the law of God would now have — 
no influence upon our conduet... Perhaps the ci- © 
vil law might retain its influence, because the 
rewards and punishments there offered, are to be 
executed or fulfilled in this world, but the divine 
Jaw would be useless. But, as a substitute has 
‘been given to bear thetniguities of a. part of man- 


_ PHEOLOGY. 44 


Kind, by suffering in their place, our motive now 
is to make that substitute our own: by submit- 
ting to the conditions of the new eovyenant, and 
thereby escape the condemnation which we haye 
truly deserved ; and this is the only method by 
which an escape from eternal death may he ac- 
complished. 
» If then a substitute is really necessary and re- 
quired by the Almighty for the expiation of our 
sins, our next enquiry is concerning the nature 
of that being whe is adequate to become a sul- 
stitute in our place. Perhaps it may be thought 
‘that the blood of bulls and goats is as acceptable 
in the eyes of the Almighty as that of any other 
being; and by substituting them as a sacrifice in 
eur place, we may escape the punishment due to 
our iniquities. But we are positively informed 
that the blood of bulls and goats can never take 
away sin. That which is a substitute must be 
‘adequate to the demands of the law. The law 
.Fequires a punishment which shall be equal to e- 
ternal misery, and as.a beast is not, as far as we 
know, immortal, it could not suffer eternal mise- 
ry in our place; and-even if it was immortal, its 
sensibility is so much less. than that of man, that 
iis sufferings could never equal the sufferings of 
eternal misery. It could therefore never be re- 
eeived as an adequate substitute for man. Thé 
greater the sensibility the greater are the suffer< 
ings, for this reason angels could not dwell on 
earth without suffering infinitely more than we 
do in this world. We have no real ideasof any 
pleasures or happiness superiour to_the pleasures 
ofthis life, and for this reason we do not feel the 
pain which we would do were we once residents . 
ef heaven and partakers of its joys,and afier- 


249 LECTURES ON 


wards banished into so miserable and imperfect 


a state as this. This it was Which rendered the 


sufferings of the man Jesus Christ, while he was . 


in this world equal to the eternal sufferings of all 
the elect. His perfections being so far superiour 
to any of the: inhabitants of this world, and his 
enjoyments so far above the pleasures of time, 
rendered his sufferings in this world equal to the 
sufferings which we would experience in hell. 
In the next place, the sacrifice of beasts would 


not be productive of that obedience'in us which — 


is required by thecondittons of the new coye- 
nant, and which a human substitute would. It 
would be altogether deficient in deterring man- 
kind from sin, not only on account of that ab- 
sence of sympathy which would always prevait 
in the sacrifice of beasts, but on account of the 
ease with which, in many instances, sacrifices of 
this nature could be procured. For they who 
were wealthy, and could supply any number of 
sacrifices, would thereby obtain an indulgence 
for the commission of any crime which the pas- 
sions might suggest. As human nature has of- 
fended, nothing inferiour'to human natare can 
effectually answer the ends-of the first covenant 
in satisfying the law, or of the second, in pre- 
serving us from sin and disobedience. Sympa- 
thy has certainly as great an effect in ruling and 


passion. When we behold a being like unto 
ourselves, endowed with the same faculties and 
capable of the same pleasures and pains, suffering 
for sins which he never committed, and of which 
he is perfectly innocent, we cannot avoid being 
affected with the same, especially when we re- 
ffect that ours.are the very sins for which pe 


‘governing the actions of men as almost any other ~ 


‘THEOLOGY, Fay 


bleeds: Butit may be asked, what person or’ 
number of persons are adequate to the task? 
No human being who is the common descendant 
of Adam could become a proper substitute to’ 
suffer for the sins of mankind, any more than’ 
bulls and goats. Every man is a sinner by na- 
ture, and is sentenced by the law to become a’ 
sacrifice for his own sins, unless some other is’ 
obtained. We would in no manner expect the 
means of our salvation from a being-who could: 
not even redeem himself. No being ot this’ 
world, therefore, can become a substitute for the 
sins of his fellow being. And furthermore, no’ 
man, if he was ever so willing, has a right to dis-' 
pose of his life to others without the immediate’ 
permission of God. In civil society, where cor-' 
peral punishments are necessary for the welfare: 
of society, a substitute of any kind whatsoever’ 
could not’be accepted, even though it could be 
obtained, because it would not answer the inten+ 
tion of the law. The offender would not then be: 
deterred from the commission of another and si+ 
milar crime. But with respect to the laws of* 
God there isan immense difference. Here a 
substitute is offered unto man only upon the con- 
ditions of his obedience to the terms of the se-’ 
cond covenant, which aré comprehended under: 
faith and its consequences; and man’ cannot re-' 
ceive the benefits of such a substitute until he 
has performed the proper conditions. Unless” 
these are complied with, the offender can have’ 
no hopes of forgiveness, and has no promise that 
a substitute shall ever be received for him, al- 
though the privilege is offered. His whole life, 
we perceive. is heeessary for the perfect accom- 
plishment of these conditions, the ends ef the: 


- 
244) LECTURES ON 


law, therefore, can be fully answered in, 
course of the diviae proceedings, although in me 
vil society it could not; for man eannot be fully 
justified until he has fulfilled all the conditions » 
of the second covenant, but if a nd covenant. 
was made with an offendem of the | vil law no 
surety could be given of his fulfilling the condi- 
tions. 15 SERS 
As I have now shown that no dencindane of 3 
Adam could suffer for his fellow beings, we must. ; 
therefore look for a substitute who, though man,- 
must be very different from the sinful beings of 
our own race; a being who is perfeetly innocent, 
and possessed of both power-and will to become 
asufferer for the sins ofmankind. This man is 
the man Jesus Christ who was pre os virgin 


Mary, suffered under Pontius Pi again 
rose to sit upon the right hand of e Father : 
Almighty.. That he wasa pen took man 10 per- 


son denies, being possessed of a rational soul ar d 
humanbody. His obedience as a man unto : 
laws of God was necessary to his own hap) S 
as a man, wherefore he could render no a 
obedience which could be applied t6 the happi- 
ness of his fellow beings. This, indeed, was not 
the object for which he was sent into the world; 
he came only to bear the sins of mankind, where- 
by those who put their trust in him can cast their 
reprobation upon him, and obtain thereby remis- 
sion of their sins. This was the object for which 
the man Christ Jesus came into the world, and. 
is the first step in the great doctrine of justifica- 
tion to life eternal. The word justification is e- 
vidently forensic, and so implies, acquittal or 
freedom from any punishment due for the trans-— 
gression of the law. Not that man is declared: 


| THEOLOGY. 245 


% innocent or figine: never committed the crime 


which he has been charged, but as free fi 
sy panies due unto it, because punishment — 
teady been executed upon his substitute. 
or example, a person is brought to trial for 


debt; he does not deny the account, that is, he 
acknowledges that he contracted the debt, and. 


has. never in his own person paid it; yet he pleads — 
that he is not bound to pay it, because it has al- 
ready been paid expressly nig him by another. 


And such is just the situation of man with re- 


gard to punishment due for sin. He acknow- 


dJedges that he has committed great and henious 


crimes, for which punishment was justly due; 
yet he argues that he cannot justly be punished 
in eternal torments, because Jesus Christ has al- 
ready paid the debt and suffered in his place. 
He therefore considers himself so far entitled to 
justification © as is necessary to free him from 
punishment, because it has-been inflicted already 
upon his substitute, the man Jesus Christ. Now 
the object of St. Paul, in his epistle to the Ro- 
mans, when he said, «Whom God hath set forth 
to be a propitiation ‘through faith in his blood to 
declare his righteousness for the remission of 
sins that are past, through the forbearance of God 
—that he might be just, and the justifier of him 
that believeth in Jesus,’’ was to show that such 
a satisfaction had been made, and those to whom 


_ this satisfaction should be accounted, were to be © 


considered justified or free from punishment. 
In the words of Dr. Whitby, “God justifies the 
sinner by absolving him from the guilt of his 
past sins, by a free act of his grace in pardoning 
his iniquities.’” ‘That justification and remission 
of sins are words of similar import, I gather still 


246 LECTURES ON | 


- farther from tthe..words of St. Paul, addressed . me | 


the Gentiles, “Be it known unto you, therefore, 
amenand brethren, that through: this man is reach- 
ed unto you the. forgiveness of sins, and by him 
all that believe are justified from | things, from 
which ye could net. be justifie . the law of 
-Moses.’? The law of Moses cou ad not ees 
or cleanse them from their sins, butthe blood 


Jesus Christ could. ‘Therefore as the term eee ; 
fication is used to signify. remission of sin, _con- 


clude that it is obtained only through the suffer- 


’ 


ings of the man Jesus, who. ‘became a saihdiaeasir 


for all, those who put.their trust in him. 
The time when this-remission of sin can and 
will take place, I take to be no other than the day ’ 
of judgment. Weare justified, howeyer, \ when- 
ever the sufferings of our Saviour are a 
fous. But as we are bound to comply wi ; 
the conditions of the new covenant bef Shs 
be entitled to his sufferings, so we c ay po 
titled to them until this life is ended, _And as 
we cannot be entitled to them uatil death, hav- ; 
ing never before fully accomplished the condi- 
tions, they cannot until then be applied, u 
applied before due, and therefore our ju: 
cannot be applied or take place until after death, 


It is really inconsistent to suppose that we are — 


pardoned or justified from our sins before they 
are committed, unless we view it in the same 
light that the Roman Catholies did indulgences. 
The scriptures inform us that by justification we 
obtain remission of sins that are past, and as all 
our sins are not passed until the day ou ee 
it cannot be supposed that we obtain forgiv 

of them until then. It is true that the scriptures 
sometimes speak of the forgiveness of sigs by 


* *PHEOLOGY. | 24% 

* 

‘our Saviour, Bb ege: Htapiide 4 little, we shall 
perceive that it was not an absolute and final re- 
mission of all sin which was intended, but was 
given only upon the consideration that they 
should lead the rest of their lives according to 
the precepts which he inculcated. It was in ef- 
fect promising that they should receive forgive- 
ness for their sinsupon their future persevera ce 
and faith. "We may learn this from the paste 
of a king who took account of his subjects, and a 
certain servant was brought who owed him ten 

pe aan talents, but being unable to pay, and 

ry penitent withal, the lord of the servant was 
moved with compassion, and forgave him the 
debt. Yet we perceive that, afterwards) when 
this servant treated his fellow servant who owed 


him an hundred pence so unmercifully, then his bg 


lord was wroth, and said, “O thou wicked ser- 
vant, I forgave thee all that debt because thou 
desiredest me, shouldst not thou also have had 
compassion on thy fellow servant, even as'I had 
pity on thee. And his lord was wroth, and de- 
jivered him to the tormentors till he should pay 
all that was due unto him.”’ Matth. xviii-33, 34. 
Now after this lord had forgiven the debt, we 
see that the servant was brought to an account 
for it, and our Saviour says, “So likewise’ shall 
my Heavenly Father do also unto you;’’ conse- 
‘quently it could not be a final forgiveness, but 
only conditional, and was given upon the condi- 
tions that this servant should show the same 
compassion to others which had been shown to 
him by his lord. And that this parable has re- 
ference to the dealings of our Saviour with man- 
kind cannot be denied, from the words which im- 
mediately follow.. Therefore that justification 
Vv 


248) - EECTURES ON” | 


which is real and absolute can only take place af 

ter death, and probably not until that grand tri-. 

bunal when all men shall be rewa according 

to their works. We see, therefore, that a sub-- 
stitute provided in this way,the benefitsof which 

we cannot receive until after death, will answer 

~ .every endof the law. Ifthe design of punish- 

ment was ever to deter mankind from disobedi-. 

ence, and show the abhorrence which God hath, 

‘unto sin, I know of no being so fully adequate. 

as our Saviour Jesus Christ. When we consider 

the extent of his sufferings; the gross abuses to; 

which he was daily and hourly subjected; the in-— 

numerable trials which he suffered; the inexpres-. 

sible agonies which he felt, even to such a degree | 

that he sweat great drops of blood; and lastly, 

his cruel sufferings upon the eross, surely it ought 

to be sufficient to deter man from the com-. 
mission of those crimes which.shall subject him 

to eternal damnation, and render him even as one » 

of those who are eternally crueifying our Savi-' 

our afresh. In the sufferings of our, Saviour we 

may behold an emblem of the miseries of the 

damned hereafter, and when the sinner reflects , 

that such shall be the acuteness of his miseries” 

beyond the grave, shall he not receive an induce- | 
ment to forsake sin. and follow after holiness? 

And again, if God wishes to demonstrate his— 

great abhorrence to.sin, in what manner can he, 
doit more effectually than in giving up his Son, - 

his only Son, to suffer and die om account there- 

of, 3 
In these sufferings of our Saviour, let itbe re-~ 
marked, that humanity alone was the subject 

and there appears no necessity ofany otha 
19 accomplish this part, of qur justification which 


“4 . ‘THEOLOGY: . , 49 
ouly 7 in the remission of sin. The ‘mab 
‘ist alone was capable of suffering as a 
te for Ane God being incapable af pain 
or suffering of any kind. By “original transgres- 
sion man became subject unto death, and every. 
‘sin was worthy of eternal»misery.. And as no 
means of escape could be found except through 
the voniidle« a substitute who was perfectly 
innocent, and had full power to dispose of his 
life as he saw fit, Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, 
took the sufferines due to man wpon_ himself, a and 
offered up his body a living saerifice in his plaee. 
: The sufferings of our Saviour being not. the suf- 
ferings of God the Son, must consequentiy be 
the sufferings of a being who, was ies and 
united with God the Son. In this way are we 
“permitted to eseape eternal wrath; but let it be 
remembered that our redemption from misery iS): 
only a part of the great doctrine of justification’ 
unto life. To be perfeetly justified requires thai 
the demands of the law be answered for us in 
every point of view. -And I think that unless 
there were two persons in our Saviour, or, at 
least, was not this sufferer a distinct person from 
Divinity, he could not have suffered and died for 
man. e are informed, however, that it was 
only the human nature of our Saviour that suf- 
‘fered, and not a distinct person.’ But this could 
‘not bes for if our Saviour was only one person 
and two consciousnesses, then we might as well 
‘say that God is only one person for the same rea- 
son, and this will not be allowed by Trinitarians. 
“It is the difference of consciousnesses which con- 
stitutes the difference of persons in the Godhead, 
x ‘and if so, jt must constitute two persons. in aur 
| oh aan in the time of * gaa hy the human, 


s 


250 LECTURES ‘ON * 


person only made use of the body as a medium 
ef sensation, and it was used by the divine per- 
son of our Saviour for conveying knowledge and 
exhibiting the power of God to mankind. But 
as I have before said, the sufferings of humanity 
eould not fulfil the whole law; the law now de- 
mands both punishment for. sin and obedience to 
the first covenant for future happiness in heaven, 
and unless both are rented we have no hopes 
of life everlasting. The next requisite, therefore, 
for our justification unto life, is the perfect and 
active obedience of our Saviour, which Iam now - 
“to consider. _ ek 
‘As we cannot escape punishment:except by a 
person who becomes a sufferer in our stead, ne 
ther can we obtain happiness unless.a person is 
also offered who will perform the conditions of 
the first covenant in our place. The conditions 
are similar to those of the second covenant, such 
as faith and holiness, but in the first covenant it — 
was unerring faith and perfect obedience, and 
the object of faith.then was God the Father, We 
were called upon to believe in his promises and 
threatenings, as delivered in the garden of Eden, 
and which we have disbelieved, therefore we 
have no opportunity of ever performing the con-— 
ditions of life eternal in our own person, and 
cannot thus attain a right to heaven. This is to 
be obtained only by the meritorious deeds of a 
substitute, who will perform them in our place. — 
Though Jesus Christ should come into the-world, © 
and by taking upon himself the burden of our ~ 
iniquities, relieve us from the punishment which — 
was due, yet this mere passive suffering entitles 
us to no reward, no degeee of happiness after 
Seath. If 3, through disobedience to the laws ef 


THEOLOGY. 25% 


5 "too Set ae . be 3s he’ 
my country as an officer,who is required to per- 


form certain, duties for my country, subject my- 


self to certain fines, and my friend sees fit te 
pay those monies in my place, this does not ent 
title me to a reward for the services whieh I . 
ought to have rendered unto my country, but 
did not. I have done nothing deserving of any - 
reward, although freed fromthe punishment due. 
And though man, on account of the sufferings of 
the man Jesus, may escape eternal punishment, 
yet this does not purchase for him a title to hea- 
‘ven. This being bestowed only as a reward, 
cannot be obtained except by some meritorious 
“actions, upon the performance of which happi- 
“ness has been promised by our Heavenly Father. 
“Rewards are not promised on account of suffer-. 
‘ings and miseries in this'world, for sufferings 
‘are in no respect meritorious, and therefore we 
have tio reason to expect happiness on account of 
‘our Saviour’s sufferings.’ No person is deserv- - 
ing of a reward for having suffered according to 
‘the sentence of the law; and as the sufferings of 
pour Saviour are according to the law, the sen- 
tence being executed upon him instead of us, 
they cannot be meritorious‘or deserving of any 
[future rewards.” If suffering for sin was merito- 
[rious of areward, then they whoare, damned de- 
iserve a reward, because they suffer for their own 
[sins; we see, however, that such is not the fact; 
they receive no happiness, and consequently de- 
serve none. Actions alone are to be considered 
as meritorious and deserving of rewards and puns 
ishments, and there is. no other foundation given 
upon which happiness can be obtained. The 
Sufferings of Christ were the consequences of sin, 
mm the human race, and therefore it would be fol= » 


bd 
omy 


952 LECTURES ON 


ly to call them meritorious in a strict sense, aly 
though it is often done when speaking of the ge- 
neral event of our Saviour’s appearance in. thi 
world. But for whose merits shall we be re- 
warded? We deserve nothing of ourselves, un- 
less it is misery; when we have done our best. 
we are only unprofitable servants, we haye not 
done even what was our duty to do. Conse 
quently if happiness is to be our portion hereaf- 
ter, we must receive it for the meritorious a 
tions of some being superiour to sinful man. 
I have already shown that the person who suf: 
fered for our sins cannot become a substitute t 
_perform meritorious actions in our place, becau 
his actions were necessary to his own happine: 
Our inquiry therefore is, for whose active right- 
eousness do we obtain the happiness of heaven? 
Not forthat of any created being,as I haye shown; 
for every created being owes obedience to the 
Deity as the condifions of his own happiness. 
We must look, therefore, to some person whois 
bound naturally by no command, subject to * 
duties whatsoever, and can eonsequently act be- 
syend duty in voluntarily consenting to perform 
that obedience which man owed to the first ¢ 
-yvenant, and has power to apply those acts o 
righteousness to those who have no righteousnes 


oftheir own. This person is God only, thes 
cond person of the adorable Trinity. He alone” 
is capable of doing those things which he is no 
bound to do, those actions which are meritorious, 
though not cf him required. The aaipuiredl 
however, inform us that this person is Jesus 
Christ; Jesus Christ, therefore, is God the seeond 

person. “The gift of God is efernal life through, 
eur Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. yi—=23. “Asin 


% 


. “Adam all « die,even so in Christ shall all be made 


alive.”” 1 Cor. xv—22. “Neither is there salya- 


tion in any other; for there is no other name - 
under heayen given among men, whereby we 
- must be saved.”’ Acts iv—12. “Therefore, as 


by the offence of one, judgment came. upon all 


-men to condemnation, even so by the righteous- 
ness of one, the free gift came upon all men un-- 


to justification of life.? Rom. v—18. It is in- 
deed acknowledged by all those who deserve 


' the name of Christians, thatthrough Jesus Christ 


only do we obtain the promise of eternal glory. 
Therefore as reason at once informs us that God 


only can perform meritorious aets of righteous- 


ness which can truly be called supererogatory, 
and applicable to the future benefit of man; while 
the scriptures declare that such has been done 
by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, we must 
acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God, or deny 


the scriptures. Ifa being who was beth God - 


and man, as was our Saviour, who is perfectly 
happy within himself, should obtain by his me- 
ritorious deeds a right to farther privileges which 


‘are to him useless, being perfectly full withia 


himself he has every right to apply these his 


meriterious deeds or supererogatory works tor. - 
the benefit of those who stand in need. “And bs 


such must be ihe course pursued, by which 

ean ever obtain a title to the kingdom of f heaven. 
Gur Saviour must suffer in his human person the 
punishment due to all our crimes, and thus jus- 
tify us from death eternal; and in his Divine 
person fulfil all those commands and acts of 
righteousness which we have omitted whereby 
a justification is ereomyeaes for us to life eter- 
nal, which completes the whole work of eur Re- 
demption as executed by our Saviour. 


THEOLOGY. | 258- 


aor 


wee 


? 


254 LECTURES ON Bars: 


‘That justification which is to be performed on’ ’ 


our parts, and which I have called justification 
to adoption, is a different subject, yet as neces- 
sary as the other,because without this righteous- 


ness of our own we cannot become entitled to 


that of our Saviour. —. when we have done 
this, having fulfilled all the demands of the se- 


- 


cond covenant, God is bound to show his justice — 


unto us, by bestowing upon us that righteous-~ 


ness of Christ which shall purchase for us hea- 
ven. To punish-man would then be injustice, 


for if the debt has been paid by our substitute it~ 


would be wrong to require it of us also. And 
if man can be redeemed and enjoy life -everlast- 
ing, this is the only way in which it can be ac-~ 
complished to accord with the word of God. 

By thus distinguishing between the justifica- 
tion wrought by our Saviour whereby” we obtain 
heaven, and that which is wrought by us where- 
by we obtain Christ’s righteousness, all those 


difficulties concerning faith’ vanish. The per- 


fect obedience which we owed, and whi¢h fre 
the Son hath performed for all those who belie 

on him, was a perseverance in the promises and 
threatenings of God the Fathers Our first pa- 
rents did not perform this, for they believed the 
words ofthe serpent in preference to those of the 
Father, and we, their posterity, haye followed 


their example. But this objection has been — 


made to our future happiness through the active 


faith and perfect obedience of our Savi iour: “faith ~ 
Pp 


is a condition required of us, which we in our © 


own persons are obliged to fulfil before we can 


obtain heaven. And Per this be the case, then we - 


perform the act ourselves, and where would be ie 
the: use eof our Saviour’s having faith for us when - 


«: 


( 


ca 
THEOLOGY: 255 


we render the same ourselves, unless the debt is 
to be paid twice, which would be unjust,” Now,. 
it is true, as J have before said, that man in his 
preent fallen state is subject to faith, but not 

that faith which purchases heaven, er the faith 
4 sh in the old covenant, but that which pur- 
ehases Christ’s righteousness. He is now called 
upon to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, which 
was not originally required, and he owes also that 
original faith required in Eden, but which he 
personally eannot render. | Man, therefore, is 
now compelled to have faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ in order that Jesus Christ will fulfil the 
faith for him which was required by the first 
eovenant. And unless man fulfils this, the oth- 
er will not be fulfilled for him. Thus, because 
faith is to be acted by us, yet the. faith required 
in the old covenant is to be performed only by 
eur Saviour, and, therefore, the debt not paid 
twice. The faith to be fulfilled by us is that 
which justifies or entitles us to adoption or 
Christ’s righteousness, such a faith as Abraham 
had, and is imputed to us not.as the righteous- 
ness of the old covenant, or that righteousness 
which saves us, but that ‘whieh.i is required i in the . 
new, and which purchases that righteousness 
_ which will save us. By our faith we obtain the 
faith of Jesus Christ, by which, through imputa- 
tion, we are saved. And that this plan has been 
pursued is now to be proved and illustrated by 
the divine word. St. Paul teaches it in all his 
writings, and more particularly in his epistle to 
the Romans, where he speaks of our Saviour as 
being perfectly just, and yet the justifier of him 
that believeth in Jesus. Our Saviour is there 
constantly set before us as the person who, ac- 


(256 LECTURES ON 


' @ording to the plan whioh T have lai laid down, 
into the-world, and in his human person s 
for the sins of men. The pardon of si 
become i in God an act of stric 
mercy. - ‘or as the! 
ferings of our Savi 
giveness, God in w 
be withholding that w 
be eonsequently-unjust. This tant si ever, 
which we have reeeived, or are privile ; 
ceive, threugh the merits of Christ, dees not b : 
long indiscriminately toall the inhabitants 
the world; salvation. through . Jesus € | 
longs only to those “ho are in Jes: 
are members of his body. AH, however, 
raitted to become members of Christ if t 
fitand proper; and. af 
men diligently to st 
they may be enable & 

_ what those conditions are whi 
formed by man, and so, hy fulfilling these, te 
qualified to receive the righteousness of Ohris 
the fruits of which are life everlasting. — 

jection, however, has been made by some w 

_ sonable reasoners against this doctrine, and uj 
on this foundation, that if God has received 
isfaction from the hands of another then e 
not be said to have forgiven the de : 

forgives asks no satisfaction Thi 
abjeetion, however, looses a vhen 

duly consider the nature of pardon or ft 
ness. Forgiveness is to be considered | ase 


themselves to aetidace ail ‘and. 
through disobedience to the law are boat era- 
ated and set free, And if any man by. his dise« 


; THEOLOGY. a5F 


bedienee has subjected himself to misery and e- 
ternal death, and afterwards through the merey. 
of God God isdelivered from this condemnation, he 
is iven, let the means of his deliverance be 
ey may. For how can- a man be more’ 
forgiven of the debt than when he is perfectly 
freed from the payment of it? Itisan act of the 
greatest goodness in God that he should consent 
to receive a substitute as an expiation or atone- 
ment for our sins, and especially when that sub- 
stitute ishisown Son. God is not obliged to re-; 
ceive satisfaction from the hands ofany but the 
offender ; and if through compassion to-our fal- 
len nature | heis inclined to act ina way whereby) 
"we may be set free, man is bound to show the 
~same gratitude to his God for accepting a substi+ 
_ tute as if he had pardoned him without ene. For: 
he receivesthe same benefits in the one way as 
in the other; he receives perfect freedom from 
all punishments due to sin, the privileges. of e- 
ternal happiness hereafter, and the favor of God: 
which he had lost; and pardon without satisfae- 
tion could obtain no more. If man can be re- 
~ deemed from suffering the penalty ofeternal dam- 
“nation, and again made capable of happiness and 
heaven it matters not to him in what manner 
thi ivine mercy has been exercised towards: 
him, whether by a satisfaction made by another 
or by pardon without satisfaction. Ifhe is tru- 
ly forgiven, this is ali that interests him. The 
scriptures, howev er, teach us that we can — 
ceive forgiveness in no other -way than throu 
h atonement made by a substitute, and though 
this may be denied by some, yet it cannot bere- 
jected without making God a mutableand inton- 
sistent being, Sut you ask, is it inconsistent te. 


# 


¢an be no exceptions. 


258 ++ 2LECTURESON 
-pard ae eriminal upon his sincere repentance,” 
even though noother satisfaction sho 


: answer, “eis inconsistent per 


ceiving that he was ‘call and Sasterhy penitent 
for what he had done, release him from allthe — 
penalty of the law and set him free, without any — 
provision of this kind being made in the law, 
would you not consider them as violating aes 4 
rule of justice? While the law demands 
ate d, 


ecute wae nds an 
having been done, there can k 
fer sin. Christ hath fully” answered on out 
parts all the demands of the law of the firs cove- 
nant whether as regards active or passive 
ence; that is, he hath answered the same 
the elect. Itis not to be supposed that he he 
answered the ends or fulfilled the demands of the | 
law for those who are finally impenitent and fi 
fil not the demand of the new covenant; h 


never suffered for their sins, f t they.shal a 


burnings ; the 
ut relief; there 


$ 


fer for themselves in everlas 
day of wrath shall find them 


This doctrine of the atonement can never 
‘disputed by any people who deserve the name 
Christians. It is in fact the fundamental ground — 
4 all our hopes for the attainment of life and im- 

ortality beyond the guave ; and without it, we 


ae ae, 


‘ Ps 


THEOLOGY, | "259 


“may at once renounce the Christian religion, and 
writhe. ing the rk corners of despair, till death 
shall convince us of the reality of an expiatory 


nature of the Levitical ec onomy. — Our Saviour 

at that early age, though HF ised, was not yet 

_ sent to bruise the serpent’s head. Faith, how- 
ever, and faith in the Messiah, was required of 
the patriarchs and prophets, and all the children 
_-of Israel as a condition under the new Covenant, 
whereby salvation was promised them in the 
same manner that it now is, only with the dif- 
ference which has been before pointed out; they 
in a Saviour - come and we believe in 
ee already slain. nie er that their faith 


ime, sacrifices and burnt offerings 1 were insti- 
tuted by the Almight as typical of the great 
. sacrifice which should one day be offered up for 
ie sinsof the world. This institution remind- 
em of the promise’ concerning his coming 
Jas theend thereof. Without the shed- 
of blood, we are informed, there is no re- 
~ mis on of sins. But it was not the shedding of 
the blood of their daily sacrifices upon the altar 
owhi h was productive of their remission, hel- 
ther was such ever considered as equivalent to 
atonement. For St. Pan! says, “It is not possi - 
ble that the blood of bulls and goats should take 


away sin.”” Heb.x—4, And, as there could a 


remission without the shedding of blood, 
ie be the blood of some other sacrifiee more 
perfect than these or the end could, neyer hay e 
been answered. As a further proof of this, St. 
Paul says to his Hebrew converts, “and every 
Ww 


sacri ‘As proof of this fundamental doc- 
tri the Christian religion, "aepey te ‘the 


t be preserved x strengthened from time - 


% 


_ 260 LECTURES ON . 


priest standeth daily ministering and offering of- 
entimes the same sacrifices whichcan nevertake 
away sins; but this man after he had offered one 
sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right 
-hand of God.”? Our Saviour, the man Jesus 
Christ, was this person who offered up himself 
asa sacrifice for sins, that thereby God might be 
again reconciled unto man, and forgive him the _ 
punishments due for his transgression. This a- 
tonement which was made by ‘the sacrifice of the 
. tan Jesus Christ, it will be remembered as be- 
fore observed, is only a part of the doctrine of 
salvation, being only his passive righteousness 
which delivers us from punishment. His works 
of active righteousness, the obedience of the se- 
cond person of the Trinity, then go to give usa 
title to the kingdom of heaven and future happi- 
ness; the same rewards as our faith in the first 
covenant would have purchased for us had we 
persevered in the same. ‘The one is a satisfae- 
tion made for sin by a human person, the other 
a meritorious work of supererogation obtaining 
for all believers a title tothe kingdom of heaven. 
Wor without his meritorious actions or. righte- 
ousness of faith in union with his sufferings as 
aman, Jesus Christ could not have complies, 
'he work of salvation. 

It is argued by some'that if we Bathn fordlte- 
ness of our sins through the passive obedience of 
Jesus Christ, we can merit heaven by ot t 
good works, such as faith, holiness, repe 
eB" atitude, love and other Christian virtues. 

en bring fer an example a person whose - 
was imputed f righteousness, the patria 
braham. But,@s I have before answered, 

. faith of Abraham as well as the faith ofall Chris. 


» * 


“e 
THEOLOGY. 261 


tians of the present age are not the conditions of 
the first covenant upon which our salvation is 
dependent, but is the condition of the new cov- 
ehant and is required only for the purpose of 
meriting a substitute who shall by his righte- 
ousness merit heaven and apply the fruits there- 
oftous. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ was 
never required before the fall, and therefore can- 
not be considered ‘or received by the Father as 
deserving of heaven, because he never promised 
heaven as areward for such faith. The only faith 
for which heaven was promised was required in » 
Eden, and signified by the tree of life, of which 
we can never taste; and unless our Saviour tastes 
ihe same for us we cannot be saved. We are 
all by nature under the law of the first covenant, - 
-and consequently all under the sentence of con- 
demnation until the conditions of that law are 
fulfilled by our Saviour. Faith in his name is 
now, under the second covenant, required of us 5- 
we must thereby become members of his body, - 
putting off the old man and becoming regener- 
ate, born anew of water and the Holy Ghost, 
and become as adopted sons of our Saviour, or 
we cannot be saved. ‘The faith of Abraham was 
required for this purpose, and was imputed to 
him for nothing more than to give him a claim 
to Christ’s righteousness, and not for a claim to 
heaven. As soon as we obtain this, we are con- 
sidered as justified, or as having done nothirg 
‘contrary to the law, but as having fulfilled it in 
every respect, not in our own persons, but in the 
person of God the Son. So that the great busi- 
ness of man in this mortal life is to perform those ' 
conditions which shall constitute him a member 
‘of Christ. Not that by doing these we do any 


FHEOLOGY. 263 


LECTURE Xz, - 


Faith and Good Works: 


I Am now led to a consideration of those 
conditions which are to be performed by us, 
in order that we may receive justification un- 
to adoption, or become members of Christ. 
For as oursalvation cannot be made certain with- 
out them, though not by them, we ought to feel 
ourselves so far interested as to let nothing go 
unfulfilled on our parts. Faith being the first, 
and indeed the only, condition of our own; all 
the’others, such as repentance and holiness, be- 
ing the fruits of faith; we are to make ourselves 
acquainted with its nature, and the manner in 
which it is to be obtained; “For they who believe 
and are baptised shall be saved, but they who do 
not believe shall be damned.”? That faith is ab- 
solutely necessary for the attainment of Christ’s 
righteousness, among all those who have thepri- 
vileges of the gospel, may be proved from the 
preaching of the apostles anc Christ himself. 
When the jailor and his family were conyerted, 


‘i 


“a 


Pies: lai ON i 


264) 
and asked, must I do to be saved?” Paul 
answered, e on the Lord Jesus Christ 


and thou shall be saved and thy house.” St, — 
John also saith, “He that bth on the Son 


hath everlasting life, and he t eth not 
ifie Son shall not see life, but the f God 
abideth on him.”’ “For God so loved the world 


that he gave his enly begotten Sdn, that whoso- 
ever believeth on him should not perish but have a 
everlasting life.” St. P aloo aly to the E- 
phesians, “By grace p saved through faith; po 
and to the Hebrews, “without faith it is igpes- 
« sible to please God.” As to thé nature of this 
' faith, various have bee 
mentators and divines. see no reason for — 
this difference of opinion, cep she seagelait, 7 


ich’ has arisem.from not suflicic 
puishin« between that faith ofo 
sa Sus, and 1 ossessed by U 


ications of com- — 


his. And, fo 


ven explicable by 
ioneeive faith to be not 
sucha firm eonviction or 
sertalmpropositions,as int 
same, when we may 
happiness and welfa 
the New Testament, is 2fir 
the Christ, t true Messiah, who was slain ia ' 
his huméa pe on “and rendered perioet o 
e Divi 2, in order that we 
e a on.of sin and ati 


kia fof Nice wen, and which aith ind 
sits the ora itions ofthe mem 
% 


a ; 


(FHEOLOGY,: 266 


Yt arises from the testimony of od isa as: 
well as his apostles. This was the faith of the 


Samaritan woman and those who were converted 


‘with her; and sueh was the faith of Martha, for _ 


* when Jesus said, “he that believeth on me, tho? 


ledge the doctrines of the Christian religi 


Me 


he w ad, yet shall he live: and whosoever 
liveth and helieveth in me shall never die. Be- 
lievest thou this??? She answered, ‘Yea, Lord,i 
believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God.” © 
They, therefore, who believe that Jesus Christ 
ts the true Messiah, ed that he hath power te 
save mankind from eternal misery, by his suffer- 
ings, and obtain for them, by his perfeet obah. 
dience, eternal glory; and areso firmly convinc- 
ed of this as to 1 > it an object of their inter- 
est, whereby ey are infinenced to act accor- 
3 ue Christian faith. 
», however, I - 
rinciple’ ‘but its 
} eS, as der obedience 
de ess, and al} Chris Ned The. 
mere act of faith piepes isa gethe er useless, and 
is possessed by devils, and nen who ee . ow 


a not malgthofe ith a principle of act 


ig, the same faith which devils and ditt 


Weccs so far as it isa belief in the same truth; 


Rit that. which I eal a Christian frit is that ind 


1ich bringeth forth fenit.. The faith required 
a the new covenant is an active faith, by whick 
we are induced to follow the ways ofrighteous- 
ness, because it is) prom) e shall live 


; se it is*promised that 
there ee 
> vivy Abe ge, less faith, or »* ic 


worksye ae become: profitable 


we __ ow * our faith by® 


ae 


2C6E LECTURES ON 


And in order that we may have such a faith itr 
Jesus Christ, the scriptures have been given us, 
for atestimony. God the Father, God the Son, 
and God the Holy Ghost have all given their 
testimony that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah: 
God the Father hath said, ‘*This is my beloved 
Son in whom I am well pleased;” and the Holy 
Spirit beareth witness of the same, by enabling 
him to cast out devils, and do many wonderful 
works, and also-in raising -him from the dead on 
the third day, as a surety of our resurrection: 
The prophets and patriarchs of old testify of 
him in all their writings, and the apostles have 
still further confirmed their sayings. Therefore, 
in order that we may havea true and vai | 
faith, we are diligently toread the scriptures an 
meditate upon what is therein revealed; to be 
constant in hearing the word of God read and 
expounded, and to devote, at least a part of our 
time, to prayer and reflection. » All who live in 
a Christian land have full power to enjoy those 
privileges, and consequently all are offered the 
assistance of the Holy Spirit; and it lies altoge- 
ther in the breast of man whether he will accept 
this assistance or not. But faith without works, 
or such a faith as devils and men who acknow- 
ledge the truth and do not perform it, possess, 
ean never introduce us into the flock of Christ, 
Even though it were strong enough to remove 
niountains, yet unless it does remove them, or 
prove effectual, it is vain. Many are the argu- 
ments which have been used to prove that it is © 
the mere act of believing only which is required 
as a full satisfaction of the terms of the new co- 
venant, and that works have no share in meriting 
the righteousness of Christ. I havealready aé 


¢ 


pees 


THEOLOGY. - 269 
incertae that faith isthe only active condition 
required, yet I have said that it mwst be active, 
and bring forth fruit in due season, Neither 
faith nor ‘works, as required of man under the 
new covenant, are conditions of our salvation, 
yet they are means or conditions whereby we 
receive justification to adoption, as I have before 
iermed it, or, in other words, justification to 
Christ’s richtcousness. In order to prove that 
we become members of Christ through the mere 
act of faith, they bring us such passages of scrip- 
ture as these: “For by grace are ye saved thro” 
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of 
God: not of works, lest any man should boast.’ 
Eph. ii—8, 9. This passage of scripture has no 
reference whatsoever to the conditions imposed 
upon us under the néw covenant; it has no re- 
ference to the faith which we are called upon to 
possess in Jesus Christ; but itis such as express- 
ly applies to the conditions of our salvation, the 
faith which we ought to have rendered in the 
garden, but which our Saviour renders for us, 
to fulfil the claims of the first covenant. This 
faith is not such as we posses of ourselves, but 
which is given by God asa substitute for that 
which we ought to have rendered. For had it 
been our own faith possessed by us, then we 
would have had cause to boast, saying, we have 
performed the work ourselves. It cannot, there- 
fore apply to the present subject. 

In the next place, “Knowing that a man is 
not justified by the works of the law, but by 
the faith of Jesus Christ, that we might be justi- 
fied by the faith of Christ; for by. the works of 
the law shall no flesh be justified. ?? Gal. 1i—16. 
This isno more applicable to the conditions of . 


ra 


8¢8 LECTURES ‘ON 


‘the ae covenant than theother, but ave meres 
ly to show that the terms of our salvation and 
the terms of our becoming members of Christ 


are different, and therefore proves the correct- 
ness ofmy theory, For we are here informed 
that we are not justified by works of any kind 
which have been performed by us, either of faith 


in Christ or in the works of the ceremonial law, 


but by the faith of Jesus Christ, not our faith in 
fosus, assome would haveit, but his faith which 


he has possessed as a substitute for that which we 


ought to hare possessed, but have not; aud we 
have believed in him through the terms of the 
new covenant in order that we might be finally. 


justified or obtain life cternal through his faith, — 


but not ours. “Therefore we conclude that a 


man is justified by faith without the deeds of the 
law”? of Moses or the cermonial law. But itis not 
our faith which justifies us to life eternal, but 
that of Jesus Christ ; and this isfurther confirmed 


by St. Paul when speaking conceraing the - 


means of our justification, saying that it was not 
our righteousness; but it was “Hyen the righte- 


eusness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ. 


unto all and upon all.them that believe.” This 
righteousness of the faith of Christ, was apphed. 


to vehtose | who had faith in Christ, and not their | 
it were if 
‘could not have been given or ed. Their 


own active righteousness, bec 


faith was necessary that they might receive the 
application of Christ’s righteousness, by which 
they were justified, All these passages, therefore, 
have no reference to, our faith as Christians, but: 
to the faith of Jesus Christ which I have endea- 
voured all along to set forth asthe only condi-. 
tien ef our final salvation or justificatien. Phe 


THEOLOGY. 969 


- faith required of us is altogether different; and 
is as well as its consequences necessary to obtain 
that faith, which, by imputation, shall save us. 
St. Paul did not wish to have us understand by 
any of these passages that either our faith or 
works were means of our salvation, but that they 
were necessary to obtain the means. That we 
may become.members of Christ, faith and works 
are both nesessary, although one is the fruit of 
the other. For we are exhorted to “add to our 
faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to 
knowledge temperance, and to temperance pa- 
tience, and to patience godliness, and to godli- 
ness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kind- 
ness charity.”” 2 Peter, i—5. “For though we 
have the gift of prophecy, and understand all 
mystery and all knowledge ; and though we have 
all faith that we could remove mountains, and 
have not charity, it is nothing.” 1 Cor. xiii—e. 
These passages go to show that our works are as 
necessary in fulfilling the terms of the second 
covenant and obtaining justification to Christ’s 
righteousness, as-the act of faith. It has been ur- 
ged, however, as I have hefore mentioned, that 
our faith and works are conditions, not only of 
the second covenant, but ofthe first, and, there- 
fore, are conditions of our final justification to 
life, that we are saved by them and not by the 
faith of Christ, and they bring us these words as 

- a proof: “But know, O vain man, that faith with- 

_ out works is dead. Was not Abraham our father 

| justified by works when he had offered Isaac. 

_ his only son upon the altar? Ye see then how that 

_ by worksa man is justified and not by faith only.” 

it may be thought that this passage is a per- 

)_ fect proof cf the ineorrectness of my theory, as 


tk 
J 


he ts 


~ ing that to be justified according to this covenant, | 


-and of that righteousness which was Bi 


‘I have been teaching that we ar@inot finally. ia. : 
* 9 


+8: 


270 LECTURES ON i 


tified either by our faith or our works, altho 
by them we obtain Christ’s ghteousness. 
reconcile this apparent diffiet it will be ne- 
cessary to understand. the invention: ‘of each of 
these apostles who have spoke upon the subject. 
St. Paul, being a man of great learning, wrote 
more upon doctrinal points than an er per- — 
son, and more particularly upon th trine of 
justification unto life. He was endeavouring to . 
show us that by our own works we fulfil no con- — 
dition of our final justification and salyati 
which IT have been particularly speaking 
taught that it was by the faith of Jesus ‘Shri, 
and his only, that we might expect justi 
tion and salvation, as this was the fulfil 
the first covenant. ButSt. James ‘was more pa 
ticularly showing what was necéssary on oui 
parts for the fulfilling of the second covenang 
and obtaining the righteousness of Christ, 
T have for distinetion called justification’ 0. as f 
doption as a member of Christ. He > was | show- a 


Suit without works was dead, and ais without ‘ 
works we could d not obtain the merifs of Christ, . 
He brings us Abraham asan exa , who be- — 
ing under the second covenant as well as we, 
performed works of righteousness. as the conse- 
quences of his faith; and the Sea + 
son was one of those works which, in union wi 
his faith, entitled him to the merits of Cr 
To be justified, therefore, in his language, 
to be made worthy of the righteousnes 
Jesus Christ. St. Paul was spe: q 
nal justification in the sight of th first co ve 


mh, 


“THEOLOGY. O71 


ihe same; that which would entitle us to the king- 
dom of heaven; whereas, St. James was speaking ~ 
of that which Pwould entitle us to the merits of 
Christ. There is therefore no contradiction in 
the language of St. Paul and St. James, for we 
are justified to the righteousness of Christ by 
our own faith and wor rls, but to be justified un- 
to life eternal, the faith and righteousness of 
Christ alone must be set forth as possessing a 
claim thereunto. ‘The second covenant isa cov- 
enant of redemption and mercy, but the first is a 
covenant of justice,and according to which is ob- 
tained happiness or misery. Af the last day, 
when the Lord of light shall come to judge both 
the quick and the dead, then shall he say to 
those on his right hand, “Come ye blessed chil- 
dren of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepa- 
Pa for yo from pe sy Gane of the world. oh 


7 


ea 


ked Ri ye clothed me; tf was sick and ye. visi- 

ted me; I was in prison and ye came unto me.’ 

The kindgom of heaven is mine; I have obtain- 
_ ed it by my righteousness for you, and because 
ye have done ‘these offices unto me, take the 
crown which I have purchased with my blood 
and perfect obedience. As for those who have 
done me no kindness, neither believed in my 
name, I have purchased for them no blessings ; 
let them depart “into everlasting fire prepared 
for the Devilband his angels.’”?, Thus we per- 
‘ceive that in a Christian land, both faith and 
works are absolutely necessary to entitle 
) the merifs of a Redeemer. The situation 
t € heathen I-yiew in the same light as that of 


272 LECTURES ON 


infants, being deficient in faith and good works 
on account of their ignorance, and consequent in- 
ability to perform the duties of a Christian. Good 
works, if I understand the term correctly, are 
those works which are agreeable to the word and. 
will of God, and are productive of good conse- 
quences to us either here or hereafter; they are 
the conditions as united with faith, which, if per- 
formed by us, will entitle us to the merits of our 
Saviour, but not to heaven. We can in no man- * 
ner trust our eternal salvation upon our own 
merits, for our most perfect obedience is corrupt 
and infirm; it is, however, by those works, 
though ever so imperfect, if sincere, that we are 
constituted members of Christ and partakers of 
his righteousness. ‘These conditions which are 
necessary to our becoming members of Christ, 
are such as are capable of being performed by 
all who live in a Christian land. But I do not — 
think that the conditions necessary to be fulfilled 
on our parts are the same to every person. They 
are, perhaps, the same in nature but not in ex- 
tent, the same faith and obedience which is ne- 
cessary to render some persons meet to become 
members of Christ, may not be sufficient in oth- 
ers. They who are endewed with only one ta-— 
lent, are only to improve one, and they who have 
ten, ten are required ofthem. They who have 
faith and work righteousness according to the 
best oftheir ability, will undoubtedly be enti-— 
tled to the merits of their Redeemer, though some ~ 
do more and others less. And undou 
each one will be rewarded according to 
has done. Faith, as well as all the consequen-— 
ces thereof, are in our power; every person who 
_4§ possessed of rational faculties, who live vin a 

“ Lk "rh. 5 . 


~ ¥ 
a, ié 


TULOLOGY. © Q73 
~ Christian land, and hears the word of God read © 
ae expounded, may partake thereof; and the 

Bid why ‘he does not, is because he makes no 
his talents in considering the nature and 
Ce oftthose evidences of the Christian reli- 
ion Which are set before him. It may be said | 
that am here denying the use and assistance of 
_ the Holy” pirif, making our rational faculties 
fufficient to every purpose without further aid ; 
bitteth isis, {true. Theinfluence of the Holy 
Spirit is scessaty in ealling our rational, facul- 
Y ties tor bglice| ug u pon those spiritual subjects; to 
ESprark, réad,Jearnand inwardly digest, the sub- 
stiice of those evidences which are so frequent; 
p Ty bth to gur consideration. It does not, 
ver, assome suppose, operate like a flash of 
ghtning-upon our minds, or, as by way of in- 
it did in days of old, but excites our 
ywers to reficetion and roller And - 
then, by meditation and reflection, we become 
‘ coftvinced of the truth of those propositions 
whi@hthave been, in numerous ways, laid open to 
| our eetandhes, but which we have never | 


Hey te Te a subject of particular attention and 
sstudy.. This excitement is not done by any sen- 
sible hipulge upon the heart, as was done in the 


days of the patriarchs and prophet§, but is made 
| by ordinary means, such as hearing the word of 
God read and expounded, adversity, loss of 
friends, misfortune and trouble, and sometimes 
even by prosperity, and many other methods. 
But if we will not hearken to these ealls, we must 
condemn ourselves, and not say it was the fault 
of God, Every man is sometimes moved to a_ 
¢onsideration of his future prospects ; ifhe con- 
Hinues his reflection, he is using the means ne- 


si LECTURES ON 
eessary for his faith and holines; but if he rejet 
these thoughts he is rejecting the offers of the 
Holy Ghost, and so never becames ainiest eli 
er in Christ. The means which aren 

for our belief and conviction : 
Christianity, are the testimonies 
his apostles, as also the ae of 
upon the evidences of th so 
‘means. which were enjo 
were of adifferent nature: “Phe! sirit; te 
erated through the means of miracle 
kinds, whereby the sick were restored, 
per cleansed, the deaf made toh hi 
ewalk, the bid: to see, and s 
the dead and be seen in many 
these calls the minds of spectators 's WéPe 
more forcibly than theysn george of 
the present age the Holy’ Spirit 

- ma way suited to our neé ssitie and 
ces, and agreeble to the law 
Nothing uncommon or rniraggl diame” 
ed for the conviction of our understz 
cause itis unnecessary. ‘The testi 
Spirit through the mouths “of the inspi 
ters, is now ‘sufficient, forif wills 10 
these, neither would they. believe ot ; 
they should arise from the dead ; houg 
means are now different from w at toa, “wel 
yet the end is the same, namely, to ca pane $s. 
to faith andrepentance. And itisin 
of every man to obey or disobey these 
calls to life and glory. Unless the faith 
red in the new covenant, were in some 1 
our own, it could not have been a condition 
the attainment of Christ’s righteousness, for the 
are no conditions in the new covenant but such. 


; 
— 


ae 


gh . 
x ° THEOLOGY. : 275° 
vis ‘is able to perform. When we pray, for: 
. ‘the aeateedae of the Holy Ghost, we in sub- 


Ay that ourminds may be more frequent- 
ie! eflect eee the importance and certain- 
he Ct ian religion, and upon those du- 
ties which are incumbent upon us; that we may 
rey medifate the.more upon. our doings and 
ation with regard to a future state, as niga the 
ie ae and threatenings of God. By suchas- 
‘sistance we are excited to consider, and if we do 
snot consider when ealled thereunto by any 
means whatever, the fault is our own, and not 
*for want of divine calls, or their want of effica- 
ey 0a the part of God. We pray also that we 
may sieuellikeneth to resist the temptations of 
the world, ,the flesh and the Devil. But this 
strength lies in the maturity of our reflections, 
for he more we consider the reason, being led 
thereunto by the Spirit, the more are we led to 
renounce the world, the fiesh and the Devil. The 
substance, facrefauck of this prayer is, that the 
Doly Ghost will continue to exgite us by vari- 
‘ous means to meditate more, and thereby fix our 
minds upon the nature and importance of those 
subjects, and the evidences which haye been - 
given concerning the course which we ought to 
pursue inour Christian warfare ; so that by due 
reflection we are brought to a knowledge of the 
truth, and by knowing the truth, are rendered 
capablevof abiding by it. For, as I have hefore 
svid, the more that.a man deliberates upon his. 
actions, the better he is enabled_ to accomplish 
his end. Thus the strength that we have as re- 
lating to perseverance in the eause of Christ, con- 
sists altogether in the frequency aad maturity ef 
our reflections, and upon this depends our faith, 


oe 
vi 
nea, 
; 7 
oi 


ae Se ey Pe nk sats 
ol r repentance ahd all our Christian virtues. 

Holy Spirit operates by contin ning to set 
fore us these all-important subje 
quently tocier dhe enan sp 


means. 
Being thus Pavaliened theo t 7 
calls of the Holy: Spirit, we have it in our 
er to obey these invitations and ee 
have our faith perfected, or not. Thi 
~may attend at the place of public | a 
be repeatedly called upon by the & pirit e 
generation and newness of life, still the call can- 
not save us; to make that call effectual and 
ductive of good consequences, we must co-ope- 
rate, we mistunot only shear b ~ Eve : 
man living in a Christian land has those calls in 
one way or another, and consequently has 
privilege of accepting the same. The Heath 
have not those means, and conseque if it they } 
receive any calls it must be thr ough 4 
» Theology onlys They viene 0 live ir 1 
Christian land, and more frequently have ,t! 
word of God preached to them, have the m«¢ 
ealls. The supplying us with the means for ¢ 
_ conversion, and inviting us through ‘those means © , 
to learn and understand, are works of the Holy — 
Spirit; the use of those means and their applica- 
tion to ourselves, are works of our own. Hay- — 
ing onee believ ed and become sanctified to aho- — 
ty life, these are means, which, if persevered in, 
vil! make ws members of Christ and partakers. d 
“or his righteousness. . 


* Regeneration and Stnctifisdtion. 
at eg 
Tr Teorrectly understand the Sandals the 


word ‘Adoption, it implies. as mue 
_ who were not. legally and naturally 
er children of God, are edecintth 


a 


he offspring 
and admitted 


that they 


_ ‘through his grace and’ love tothe same inheri- 
‘tance and rights, as though they had been origi= 
nally and naturally his: real children, and had ree 
“mained perfectly innocent from the beginning. 
‘To be thus received and adopted as sons of Gov 
and. members of Christ, certain - conditionsiare. » 
“required in this world, and which may be. sum- 


med ve in the word Regenefation. 


And though & 


God hath from everlasting ‘determined ‘upon * 
aihese who s shall be-adopted, ‘yet. it was from a. 


‘gerne 7 


Phe conditions of acoption, however, 


same extent in all cases 


more, ist 


a. 


e 
some and less of others. @Yct the fall 
peapiencner isequined, is regeneration, in ever ‘y 


iy 
” 


& 


awle Te of those who, wotta We become re- 


d therefore» Sate ely a 
n 


ired © 
ing oj 


¢™ 


of 


- = 


ee" 


oe 
278" here oN’. on 
one. All that is rgd =k i < Baptisin, 
whereby they are ag be of, 
Christ’ and adopted as ae ers of 
and they, dying in their infaney s me 
tized,,are admitted indesthe hee ce ae 
receive the inheritance of See i 
nal. Baptism in mfantss therefore 
is required (0 their salvation, Ste rege 


ration, becatise none but th who: rn aga 
ean inherit life @ternal,” Neverthe! 3 ‘though 
infants, are perfectly regen by» baptism, to 
preserve this state in its firs perfection rough 
life, requires if those whd come ; 
a change of heart and.afieetions. 
dults, whether per formed befa: 
of maturity, then becomés on 


eration, or rather @n Outward and Cable 


an inward or spiritual change of heart. 

baptism aloné can be the means Fi riba to r 

noneé-but tafants,.. And if, svhen th an 

maturer “years: they refuse to cpl ih 

other conditions of the gospel; that 

once have. saved them now begomes to th 

none effect, and. consequentlytheir Fah oll 

is neyer again perfected. ‘That is, their 

ration becomes imperfect, because they, do 

continue in the “same state off obedience, Our, 
plemesent is perfectswhile we continu to abide. 

y all the orga of the law; but, ‘hen n other — 


fulfiiing ghest corrupts the whole’ RASS | : 
former ohedience iff life.’ Gonseq ue: ntly wth + 
who are.regenérated in.infincy, may afte , 
become usregoucrate By a 1e@l€ct of additi 
dutieésWhich tre ré Guired of those who hay 
totyears of diseretivn and judgment “Bei 


o* 


‘aul “ ie - »” 
R Py he 8 7 nay eg 
Pac a oe is i 5 
@ nig eg _ 279° ; € 
are to an “unregenepate state, w consequent- f 
ly lose Sus geet as members’of Christ. But = * be 
— you may. ask, have you fot beforeimtimated that. 7 
We number of the adepted, like that of the élect, 
®can neither be incre’sed nor diminished? ~ To + 
this let nfe*nswer, that to. be adopted as’ mem- 
- bersof Christ is different from that adoption by 
which, we'are finally initiated into the participa- - 
tiontef eternal glory. Adoption, aecording to 
the Rey. Charles Buck, is of two kinds, spiridwad- « 
and glorious. Spiritual adoption is that where- 
by weare received as members of Christ’s church . 
in this world, and of which I have been speak- 
ing; while a glorious adoption is that in which 
the saints, at their resurrection from the dead, are 
*« Owned to be the children of God, and then enter 
into the possession of that inheritance which has 
been provided for them. They, therefore, who 
at’ the last day are thus adopted, are those, the ¢ 
» nuniber*of whom f have considered as not to be 
increased or diminished. Consequently, thoug 
the number of real members of Christ in this 
_ world mayrvat different times be increased or di- 
- miitished, yet with the finally adopted it is far 
otherwise, for they aré only those who belofg - 
to the numberof the elect; while they who are, « 
~ spiritually adopted are only such as become saints - 
w while here, and have the privilege of disobedi-, 
ente and degeneration. q" 
_* But though baptism is the only condition,re- 
we in the regeneration of infants, yet with ~ 
"i hose*who have come to matureryears it is far 
otherwise. With them, not dhly additional * 
* ties: y required, but a radical change of the hear 
» atid spiritual*affections. We mustistrive to make 
our’chief pleasure consist imlovingy worshipping - 
: 2 ‘ 
a - bad 


a f 
me a) = . 


¢ : 


" 


* ie i. 
% 280 ¥. Re bd 


and lobcaingit Creator, in eh ee ; 
siieere praises fewthe ‘ ch he pas. 
‘bestgwed eiiigns in ie lie, a 
: _ those whichsre eterwal;"afid the 
; 2 we dre to his Service here, the hai 
prepared for dweiling in his pre 
The purity of heart whith is wrow 
? Holy Spirit, and is so necessary to rén: 
» fovheaven, is what is called ‘Sanetifieat nd. 
Regeneration is its commencement. Regenera- 
tion is the change which is wrought from an ‘un 

holy and unsanctified state, to_a state of t 
ousness and sanctification. This Bae ck 
dual in its progress, and cannot be acqi 
some suppose, in a moment; but require 
_ tation and an holy practice, whereby we are en-_ 


abled to ipa more and more perfett ea 


, a 


continue religious course of life. Our 
_ must be ed to the worship of God 
must learn to make such our pleasu 
i light’ here, in order that we may 
hereafter. The pleasures of time and s 
have no place in our: hearts, but we mus fix 

ve te upan things spir itual, Our thor 

which are so prone to ahd a , 
trary to the suggestions of Th 35) ory. 

attached to the delusive’ vani vf this worl as 
' must be made to harmonize wi 
o image wethave lost. The co digion 
wi fore*the fall was such as it oul 
pilre, holy, and uncorrupted with t 
the human and digine vigelleet aoineided 

“each other in theirj oys, and i in theip abhorrénce 5 

to singin their d ositions, and affettions § to 

@that union with and conformity the ima ; 

gat Make? Ww ee lost wong 

a S * 


. ee ” ee 
7 He me: > ” 


< 


; é 
¥ " be s 
es 


 - ot & 
THEOLOGY. w 231. 
be. a“ at » . eg re k . : 
A i} # 4 
» guity, and it must be in a Measure restored be~ 
fore we can be truly meet for heaven. an Was 
said i ve been created in the image of God, 
not only because his nature was similar but be= 
‘eause his spirit and disposition were like the” eo 
spirit of God. This divine spirit. is altogether 
pure and holy, free from every CO raihids, and 
averse to sin; consequently while we arestaint- 
ed with impurity and corrupticn, with sinful.af. 
fections and unhallowed desires, we cannot dwel 
with God; for sin is contrary to Mis nature. We 
must therefore be changed, rénewed in our 
_ hearts and inclinations, and again made ina mea- 
sure like unto God, before we can be meet for 
the kingdom of heaven. 
This change, so necessary in becominga mem- 
ber of Christ, and which is more commonly call- 
ed regeneration, is to be wrought by the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, in union with our own 
endeavours, and through the medium of our ra- 
tional powers, whereby the spirit of man. is 
again made to unite with the Spirit of God, and 
qualified for his presence. Without this change, 
what would man do in heaven, even if admitted 
there; a being whose mind is darkened by the 
elouds of a corrupt disposition, an evil disposi- 
tion also as regards our natural desiresand world- 
ly affections? What could a sinful being like 
man, unrenewed in the spirit of his mind, do in 
the presence of a God who chargeth his angels 
with folly? The prophets, apostles, martyrs, . 
and spirits of just men made perfect would be no” 
company for him. The worship of the Most ~ 
High God with him would*be cold and lifeless. 
_ Heaven would be no heaven with him. Our... 
omainds, therefore, must bebrought to harmonize: « 


e > di- 
tae 
: 


S- 


“© 


Pi 


282 2” TURE sen | io ¥ 
. : 


: betome:cha ctice of Pe 
Sad) imimorali ‘othe. re virtue is not 
-Tegener doall this from worldly 


with the ie ven and es we whi 
we arejealculating ae . peme 


in eek tasted -her 


motives. “Reg ae ‘is an internal tee ; 
oe consist in an outward profes app oF ia 
e practice of religious duties, for evena Deist 
ay attend the ordinances of God, and lead, as 
far as regards his external appearance, a moral 
and Baber life, and be a useful member of socie- 
ty, and yet without the least spark of religion or or 
piety.. Hemay do all this from his desire 
maining of a respectable character among man- 
kind. But regeneration is not only a change of 
life and conversation, but a change of motives 
also. He who is regenerated leads a religious 
and moral life from love and gratitude to God, 
from faith in his name and his promises, from 
the pleasure which he derives from sineere de- 
votion, and the hope of life eternal. The effects 
upon his external conduct may in some measure 
be the same as often arises from selfishness and 
the desire of popularity. It is not outward bes 
haviour, therefore, which constitutes sanctifica- — 
tion, but the purity of those motives from which Ly 
his external life arises. Good-works are no 
more than the effects of Sanctification, and is the 
only sign which we have of it, by which K 
commonly understand the heart, as we learn a 
“tree by its fruits. But it is not an infallible si 
repay belons ip remarked, but may ari 
i 


ott rinciples. @ A false pro 
A as, it peg 
45 rendered ty Gul d 


& 


a 


1 


THEOLOGY. 283 


Spirit, and which sanctification is commonly dis- 


tinguished from a false profession, by peculiar _ 


reverence for the Supreme Being, regard for his 
word, resignation to his will, a firm confidence 
in the merits of his Redeemer, “and is nothing 
else, (says Archbishop Usher,) than for a man 
to be brought to an entire resignation of his will 
to the will of God, and to live in the offering up 
of his soul continually in the flames of love, and 
as a whole burnt offering unto Christ.”? Hav- 
ing our minds united with God, and filled with 
heavenly dispositions and affections, weare then, 
through justification, in Christ Jesus, whereby 
we obtain remission of our sins, and a title to the 
kingdom of heaven, well fitted to enter into life 
eternal. We can then unite with the angelic 
host which guard his throne, in singing praises 
and thanksgivings unto the Lamb, forever enjoy- 
ing those pleasures which are laid up for those 
who do his will upon the earth. But, asI have 
before said, between a life of real sanctification 
and nature there is a vast’ difference; a great 
change is to be wrought. The natural man, 
“the carnal mind, is enmity to God,’ and the 
imaginations of the heart are only evil continu- 
ally. The bistory of mankind confirms the as- 
sertion ; for while they are ever considering 
themselves as fast hastening towards the stand- 
ard of perfection, they remain at an immeasura- 
ble distance from it. Wars and fighting still 
find place among mankind, and, in spite of every 
Warning, so great is the corruption of human na- 
ture that man is ever pursuing the path ofwick- 
edness and vice, in preference to the’straight and 
narrow way which leadeth unto life. There is in 
Y ‘ 


- 


eye 


¥*. 


and read ‘through far better motives. Conse- 


284 LECT 
our nature a reluctance: BRE yo Br 


ligious duties, and. the worship of e od 1 see en 


it were burthensome and constra iF 
ous and impartial study ord. o 
the history of man it general wild rfa 
us ‘° behold him as y far 
oo ] righteousness, ta ‘onl to iniquity y 

sparks to fly upward. A change, there- 
Pi must be wrought before we can be prepa- 
red to enter the kingdom of heaven. This change. 
is brought about by the influence of the: ery 
Spirit upon our reasoning faculties, and 2 sh 
fected inthe following order: Fist adis 
eating our natural pr ejudices; ‘alow i ineli- 
ning us to meditate upon the beauties of religion 
and virtue, and to do this without prejudice or 
partiality ; and thirdly, by indueing us into a 
resolution to act and persevere in the prenges of 
Christ. 

The means by which we are led to this pro- 
cess of regeneration, are the hearing and read- 
of the word of God ina sufficient degree toraise 
in our minds a further desire or euriosity to un- 
derstand what the chief principles of Christiani- 
ty are. In order to understand any system of — 
philosophy or religion perfeétly, we must 
deavor to pursue our studies in a way whie 
free from the prejudices of habit and education 
Consequently, even though our first motive for 
studying the nature of the Christign reli a 
no better than that of curiosity or e omer 
place talk, yet it may finally lead us to meditate 


quently, the reading of the scriptures ought te 
be encouraged in every place. And it-wiall fre- 
as uf ‘ pA * ’ - 


ce 


* Fa THEOLOGY. 288. 


oe 
quently be found that they who have experien- 
ced regeneration, have had the foundation laid: 
upon mere curiosity, and were influenced to com- 
mence their ar upon the nature of the 
Christian religion merely froma desire of being 
capable of conversing freely upon those points 
when opportunity offered; and perhaps even 
from no better motives than those of the Deist, 
that they may be enabled to refute the doctrines 
taught in the word of God. And after having 
read and studied fora while from these motives, 
they begingto be convinced that their first opin- 
ions were false, and therefore now read without 
prejudice, and thus become convinced and bro’t 
to a full change of their lives and principles. 
This change is more gradual in some than in o- 
thers, and is sometimes so slow that it becomes 
altogether imperceptible. Some have entertain- 
ed an idea that conversion or regeneration is a 
mysterious effect, produced by .a sensible im- 
pulse upon our hearts, or even upon our bodies by 
the Holy Spirit, striking many as it were like a 
flash of lighting, whereby they are changed in 
aninstant, and can tell the place and minute of 
their regeneration. If there are any such con- 
versions in the present age, I know nothing of 
them, and consequently cannot believe in them. 
That persons may, through animal feeling and 
sympathy, be sensibly affected upon particular 
occasions, I doubt not, but such is not regenera- 
tion. It may be the means of leading persons 
to meditate, to consider and reflect upon their 
situations, and by this means to a future change 
and regeneration, as this is gradual. To be thus 
changed, is, in the janguage of the New Testa-- 


, 
¥ 


LJ 

age. ¢ amen 

‘< gi ment, to be born again, to 

light, whereas by nature w 

“ ness. By persevering in thi 
‘become entitled to the merits 
viour, and by his mer to the ki ng 
; pits |e Lc 
; vit ea 


Nc9lsZvcod 
On 


